Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
In this case, rules cover this issue : names as in credits, then use CLT results for common name. Clear and simple...

What the rules do NOT tell us is:
How to handle the problem that the found common name can (due to program limitations (i.e. auto.filter)) not be used as common name?
And all of a sudden it is not that clear and simple anymore.

Except for the majority of the participants of this poll.
You, of course, are free to handle it anyway you like.

Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:
How to handle the problem that the found common name can (due to program limitations (i.e. auto.filter)) not be used as common name?

This is what rules, as they exist today, request, not me. Ken could change that, but he has not yet modified the rules, and nobody can do that for him, even with a poll.

At present time, we only can handle those data as each data that program limitations do not allow to contribute :
- necessary fake birth years
- profiles of different movies with same UPC
- two movies on same face of disc
- headshots
- gallery photos
All these data are useful, and can be shared on the forums so each user can use them in their local , to obtain a linking database, that we do not havewith the online. Ken made a system that do not allow to contribute common names altered by his filter. That is not worse that the impossibility to distinguish two actors with same name and no known birthyear...

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
I say nothing. Rules ask to do that.

No they don't.  They say to use the CLT, not how to use it.

---------------

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:


Now, I'm tired to explain what is obvious to people who just want to violate rules because it is their preference.

Or, it might be that people are basing their opinions on more than one small section of the rules - something Ken and invelos' has stated is an acceptable part of the contribution process.

Quoting ateo357:

Quote:
Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:

So yes, as far as Ken and the online database is concerned the filter shows he considers John Smith Jr / John Smith, Jr. / John Smith Jr. / and John Smith, Jr have equivalent common names.  So if Ken (the database owner) considers these names to have the common name it makes more sense to combine the counts.

No where in the rules or any posts that I have found has Ken stated that Filter = Common. It is a filtered name. It is you and the other 32 that have decided that filter and common mean the same thing. If you can not understand the difference between the 2 meanings of those words, I can't help you. The Rule uses the word standardization, to me that isn't the same as common.

+1

Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
They're a tool for making sure the data entered is useful and consistent.

Sorry, but when rules ask us to create unexisting variants for names, they are a tool to make sure the data entered is useless and inconsistent. Same when they ask to recopy errors, with the result to unlink data and forbid to use correctly sorting and filtering functions.

The problem is that the majority here has voted for a strict application of rules in all cases, each of them having probably in mind a point for which he really prefered to use raw data.

Then, when those who voted to follow stupidly rules are in front of something they do not want to see, they try to find a way to reach what they want, and create polls to be allowed to violate what is written. This is not correct, and the only correct way is to discuss the problem in the Contribution Rules Committee, and wait for a change of rules, or a clarification, from Ken. In some cases, proposals that obtained a majority are still waiting after more than 4 years, and corresponding inconsistent data have proliferated. Probably Ken prefers chaos than consistence.

-deleted-
accidentally posted in wrong thread