DVDSpot also had a similar system for inputting cast/crew.  I think it's very difficult to have one without the other.  If you want correct linking, you are going to have to have some validation/verification step (meaning you can't just type in credits as is).

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
People shouldn't HAVE to worry about the linking as well when they contribute. As long as they are correctly putting in as credited in the credits they should be able to contribute. I know I for one will never research every name in the credits to see if...

1. There is another person with the same exact name
2. See if they ever been credited under another name

Sure... this may be easy enough for some of the mega blockbuster stars... but no one is familiar with every person in the entertainment industry and people shouldn't have to research all names just to contribute. Now I may be wrong... but that is how you all are making it sound.

The linking process needs to be just as voluntary as any other part of the contribution process.

Obviously, I agree with this.  We have already lost a lot of contributors due to the complexities we've introduced.

If Ken is only interested in attracting the seriously anal retentive, he will have a very small user base (pun intended).

While I generally agree with the "Unique-ID"-idea, because it solves more problem than it creates, I'm not sure in how far this is supposed to help to fix linking.

Example:
User A creates a profile where actor John Doe appears.
Now it's up to the user to either link this actor to an already existing ID or create a new one. Both might be fatal regarding a correct linking.
Since DVDProfiler in it's current status doesn't countercheck other profiles errors are easily implemented.

In fact it's not the basis of the linking system (common name, ID, pictograph, or whatever) that is causing the problem, it's the users that are ignoring this system and thereby are creating errors.
I'm quite sure that a mere change of the basis wouldn't solve the problem.

Linking is only very scarcely a problem for the well-known (and usually well-documented) cast and crew members (except for Ida Flammenbaum, maybe), but is getting interesting in the depth of the supporting roles.

So possibly the best way to solve this problem is to finally split the profiles into two parts:
1.) Disc-Level: With the disc-specific data like UPC/EAN, Overview, Features, Audio-Tracks, etc ...
2.) Movie-Level: containing the movie-specific data (credits)

The movie-level data is identical for every disc containing this movie.

Advantage:
- Because of the sheer mass of users controlling the data errors are easily detected and fixed.
- Users in less active localities would profit from this too.

Problems:
-Sadly credits aren't always identical and might differ from region to region or with different editions. This could be solved by distinguishing the origin of the movie-level data (region and edition (Theatrical / Extended / Director's Cut /...))

- Creating new and incorrect movie-level data would be as easy as creating incorrect cast-/crew IDs . This could be solved by a semi-intelligent title-query. That on the uploading process automatically compares the uploaded title (including data like cast and/or crew) against already existing titles and automatically corrects the title if needed.

- This might be by far too much work for a minor program update.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
People shouldn't HAVE to worry about the linking as well when they contribute. As long as they are correctly putting in as credited in the credits they should be able to contribute. I know I for one will never research every name in the credits to see if...

1. There is another person with the same exact name
2. See if they ever been credited under another name

Sure... this may be easy enough for some of the mega blockbuster stars... but no one is familiar with every person in the entertainment industry and people shouldn't have to research all names just to contribute. Now I may be wrong... but that is how you all are making it sound.

The linking process needs to be just as voluntary as any other part of the contribution process.

Obviously, I agree with this.  We have already lost a lot of contributors due to the complexities we've introduced.

If Ken is only interested in attracting the seriously anal retentive, he will have a very small user base (pun intended).

Going to film based credits would counter this somewhat as you would only need one complete credit instead of dozen different ones.  I recently contributed a Blu-ray profile for The American.  It's a pretty big movie starring George Clooney.  I was surprised to find that there was no existing Canadian profile for this release, and that US profiles for this movie (both DVD and Blu-ray) did not have any cast/crew info.  Fortunately I found a ?Dutch profile for this movie with cast/crew and copied it for my Canadian profile submission.  I think most people who are anal enough to copy the credit verbatim from the film credits, will go through the extra step of verifying the cast/crew data if it's made resonably user friendly.

Quoting xradman:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
People shouldn't HAVE to worry about the linking as well when they contribute. As long as they are correctly putting in as credited in the credits they should be able to contribute. I know I for one will never research every name in the credits to see if...

1. There is another person with the same exact name
2. See if they ever been credited under another name

Sure... this may be easy enough for some of the mega blockbuster stars... but no one is familiar with every person in the entertainment industry and people shouldn't have to research all names just to contribute. Now I may be wrong... but that is how you all are making it sound.

The linking process needs to be just as voluntary as any other part of the contribution process.

Obviously, I agree with this.  We have already lost a lot of contributors due to the complexities we've introduced.

If Ken is only interested in attracting the seriously anal retentive, he will have a very small user base (pun intended).

Going to film based credits would counter this somewhat as you would only need one complete credit instead of dozen different ones.  I recently contributed a Blu-ray profile for The American.  It's a pretty big movie starring George Clooney.  I was surprised to find that there was no existing Canadian profile for this release, and that US profiles for this movie (both DVD and Blu-ray) did not have any cast/crew info.  Fortunately I found a ?Dutch profile for this movie with cast/crew and copied it for my Canadian profile submission. I think most people who are anal enough to copy the credit verbatim from the film credits, will go through the extra step of verifying the cast/crew data if it's made resonably user friendly.

bold by me...
I don't find this to be true at all. I Know for me... I love to take the credits from the actual film... but I seldomly use credited as. Only do it for obvious ones... I do not feel the need to research all the cast I do. And don't want to be put in the position that I have to.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
he needed to balance the accurate info wanted by the most anal of users with the ease of use for the average user.

And he should stick with that principle. Of course we should realize that "the average user" is not the one painstakingly copying cast and crew verbatim, one by one, from the films credits. The number of users who actually consistently do that is a lot closer to "12" than to "the average user". So yes, there should be a balance between what "the most anal of users" want and what "the average user" wants - as long as we keep in mind what those needs are, exactly.

As far as I can tell, the average user is this one, for example: simply downloading two profiles with the same actor in them and not understanding why they don't automatically link together. That's what the average user want: to download profiles for the films that he owns, and expecting that if he clicks on a name, that it brings up the person's other credits in his database - without having to make a ton of corrections first.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
he needed to balance the accurate info wanted by the most anal of users with the ease of use for the average user.

And he should stick with that principle. Of course we should realize that "the average user" is not the one painstakingly copying cast and crew verbatim, one by one, from the films credits. The number of users who actually consistently do that is a lot closer to "12" than to "the average user". So yes, there should be a balance between what "the most anal of users" want and what "the average user" wants - as long as we keep in mind what those needs are, exactly.

As far as I can tell, the average user is this one, for example: simply downloading two profiles with the same actor in them and not understanding why they don't automatically link together. That's what the average user want: to download profiles for the films that he owns, and expecting that if he clicks on a name, that it brings up the person's other credits in his database - without having to make a ton of corrections first.

I absolutely agree.  Your average user is more concerned about correct linking far more than how that person is credited.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
I know a single name field would break current functionality, but personally that's something that I would happily sacrifice. If we can't decide proper parsing (e g Kristin Scott / Thomas vs Kristin / Scott Thomas), then sorting by last name is crippled anyway. But that's just me...

Totally agree. Why only go half of the way?