Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
No Kathy I will not. Kathyvision is superior, you think so. I find your consistent behavior to.be non-productive, argumentative, combative at the very best. Not to mention that your psostings have more to do with your self righteous attitude and do nothing more than derail what little discussion can be had.

I am sorry Skip, but Kathy is correct when she points out that she did nothing to warrant your post towards her.  All she did was let the user know that, if he felt harassed, throwing in the towel wasn't the only option.  Not once did she mention you, or claim that you were the one doing the harassing.  I honestly saw nothing in her post that would warrant a 'thought police' comment. 

Quote:
I welcome discussion, two way conversation, not being forced to repeat, peat and repeat again because some user doesnt want to listen or learn but only wants to hear the answer he wants.

Nobody is forcing you to repeat, anything.  You, as we all do, have a choice in the matter.  You can choose to repeat yourself, or you can choose to stop responding.  If it bothers you so much, I honestly don't understand why you would choose the former rather than the latter. 

Yay. Skip is posting again.... I missed the days when threads blew up to numerous pages of useless insults and got completely derailed.

To anyone who's even remotely thinking of leaving because of him... don't. He's the ultimate definition of a troll. Ignore the ever loving sh*t out of him and believe me, you'll enjoy this place a hell of a lot more because of it.

Ok, I am going to make one more post, then I will refrain from further posting. Excuse the layout but I don't know how to multi-quote on this forum. And Mr. Winston Smith if you want to have a dig at this post considering I said I wouldn't make another, then go for it - it seems that's what you're best at.

The Facts:
I made one post concerning what i believed to be the case with most movies.

Winston Smith, your immediate reply was:

"Well then parsec you are flat out wrong on all counts. I repeat follow the ruled, we are not interested in what you think is correct, that had its place and it is not online. We use only hard data from the film source and that is known, you can disagree all you want but the facts are,  that the data can vary from release to release, region to regiandlocality to locality. This has been seees the last 12 years, does it happen often no. But the only way to protect the datas integrity is as i previously outlined. For one yo claim otherwise is just simply...I wont say it."

Fact: there is no explanation there, there is no help, there are no examples, there are no arguments. All there is from you is a request for me to basically shutup and go away - as you state *we* are not interested in what I say.
Fact2: The statement "We use only hard data from the film source" is wrong. The current rules use the data from the media source, not the original source of the film (which is actually what I was proposing).

Fortunately a few others provided example of movies and links to other threads etc as case in points - which is the right way to answer my assertions.

After some further bru-ha created by following posts, you're next most noticeable post Mr Winston Smith is this:

"So let me get this straight. I present arguments an back them up, sometimes I even try to pmiddle ground if possible. But no I get nothing that indicates understanding, I get waaaaaaaah I want to do it MY way. Answer NO, then people start throwing insulting remarks at me and I am the bad guy. Sirry, while your comment is so typical of you, it is unacceptable. Grow up kid."

Fact: as stated above there was no such argument to back up your statement to me, and definitely no movement to the middle ground, it was purely a derisive statement.

I know you are not going to listen to me, Mr Winston Smith, as you have already stated you are not interested in what I think, but maybe that's exactly what you should do before you hit the reply button - THINK!

Parsec
You are welce to post, in fact in general I enjoy them, even this one. I believe if you review my posts you will find that I did indeed discuss details of the dave/david chapelle credit. Nothe first couple of posts but I did raise it  I also discussed that I vow cloning of data to be a bad idea, thsyb said, ken allows it, all I suggest is personal verification of your data against the clone and include that info in your notes. Please. The online as i have said is built around hard data that is based upon the actual credits, one stand that will never change is that user interpreted or manipulated data is not a good thing, and that is what cloning data us about...but ken allows it, dont like it but I can ask for good notes.


There are numerous things which have been seen in 12 years which you may be unaware, including the period when user manipulation of data was the norm and the database was a nightmare...not on elm st.

Merik
Not mad at you. Your shot surprised me, along with some others, since I had not fired on anyone. Just wanted to help parsec.

Quoting Jimmy S:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:

Actually, it's not...against the rules I mean.  In this post, Ken said (...)

But Ken said in the first part you haven't quoted

"complete cast and crew is impossible to correctly contribute without having the disc"

I agree with you that Ken had place some limit on what you can't contribute if you don't own a disc and the cast/crew is part of this.

Also note that it was a reference at what T!M do (contributing on disc he don't own and can't check) and not one about downloading a profile of another locality to start your own profile. As long as someone can check if all the infos are the same of the one he/she own I don't see a problem.

If, by exemple, I use a Quebec (Canada) DVD I own to do all the other ones from the other locality there no way I will know if I'm right and don't create false data as I don't check the other locality DVDs I would contribute for.

Very well said.

Yeah we agree on the principle. I read your initial post as if you were ok with the way T!M do it, but I just check it again and I read it wrong. You never wrote that you agree with what he do, sorry for making you say what you didn't write

I uderstand for the pre-release as no one had the disc anyway, but not for the release DVDs. I will never understand why Ken find this acceptable for available DVDs, like I said (or think I said it at one point) that doesn't fit with the usual way the database strict creation process is.

Ill make no comment, martian.

To expand a bit and maybe even inject some humor into what my friend pantheon said. I echo his sentiments. I have used profiler for 12 years, I have seen the period when user manipulation was the norm and the chaos it caused. I have discovered just how bad IMDb is as a product. I dont understand want to take a product, imdb, and clone it, if you really like IMDb, then use them they will permit you to track up to 10,000 titles for nothing. But leave their data where it belongs. Profiler is already the most powerful database of its kind in the world and can only get stronger. The only thing holding it back are the users.

I love this program as pantheon does. I have spent tens of thousands of hours auditing profiles,, creating image scans and contributing. I am as lazy as the next user, there was a time when we had a tool that scraped IMDb data, it was fast and easy to do. Then came a discovery, the company forbade the IDE of IMDb as a datasource. So i began to think about other options, it didnt take long to realize that the best place to get data was from the horse's mouth, the film credits. So i began the process of auditing existing data against the film credits. I discovered that IMDb wad rife with incorrect data, incorrectly ordered, made up data and no indication where such problems came from, otherwise known as bibliography. I spent the next two years with another discussing these findings and trying to construct a foundation for profiler going forward. We concluded that we needed to use the credits and other materials, like overviews, from the disc and/or package. If profiler was to be successful the anything goes approach of allowing users to interpret and manipulate the data to suit his/her whim had to end. Ken was learning much the same thing on his own.

What was created was data centric, user neutral and user friendly system based upon the disc product in hand. We assembled a world wide team of users to translate our discussions into rules. We also invited ken to participate, which he did, he was prepping a new beta at the time and he made changes and additions based on what we were producing. The writing process took 90 days, I can still remember some marathon chat sessions we would have up to 16 hours. The centerpiece of the rules was no user interpretation or manipulation of data online. We recognized the power of the online/local design. The online had to be driven by data, in such a way that all users were entering data from the same place in the same way. It was recognized that the online could never satisfy the users because everyone would want something different, so the online provides a universal basis, from which each user can customize the data to his liking locally. Thats real power. The rules proceda took 90 days to complete andanother 90 for ken to publish them.

I hope people find this useful and informative  as i said before my sole thing is that I want to help users if lucky I will see this program that ken continues to develop become something to behold and we can all be proud. Nut ad with any db the weak link is US.