|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6 Previous Next
|
Parsing unknown names |
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 519 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Gadgeteer: Quote: Quoting RHo:
Quote: Quoting Gadgeteer:
Quote: Is it important to have the names in the'correct' field? Why would you want different fields at all if you are willing to parse the name by a simple word rule?
I don't. I could happily live with the 1 field. As long as the actor filter could search on sub-string, then I don't see the advantage of 2 or 3 fields. Does anyone actually have a use for them? | | | Stuart |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 21,610 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote: Quoting Gadgeteer:
Quote: Personally I agree with you and would rather see a very simplistic parsing with no exceptions. However, I don't think you'll get agreement across the board. Glad to hear that. I agree that some of the more vocal users will probably protest loudly. While in fact, such a change would lead to less disagreements than the current situation does. Now me and Skip probably disagree about 200 names, of which probably less than five can be documented in any way. A change like this would result Skip in having to let the "culturally correct" parsing of these five go, while we would then suddeny agree on the other 195 names. All in all, that seems like a good result for everybody. So I don't really understand the resistance. Let's just hope that Ken makes a wise decision...
Quote: I would like to hear reasons as to why it's useful to have H//B C instead of H/B/C? Other than to be culturally correct. I don't think there are. As I said before: the Helena Bonham Carter debate is the single cause for my change in handling three-piece names. Before Helena Bonham Carter, I parsed them all alike. Now I try to assess for every name whether the middle word is either part of the last name or part of the middle name. Documentation on parsing is basically non-existant, so you usually have to decide by yourself. That's the whole story: with Helena Bonham Carter we opened a can of worms that cannot be easily closed. If we do want to end the confusion, the solution had better not leave anything open to interpretation - culturally correct or not.
Edit: to Skip, once more, documentation on what is (culturally) "correct" parsing is basically non-existant. Sure, someone managed to dig up a complete family history on Helena Bonham Carter, but I assure you this is an exception. Can you show me a dozen three-piece names that have been properly documented? For argument's sake, let's say there are indeed a dozen. Wouldn't you say that parsing those few "wrongly" would be a small price to pay to get agreement all accross the board on ALL hundreds, maybe thousands of other names consisting of more than two words? Tim: My point exactly. You are mmaking an assumption which cannot be supported, even CULTURALLY. You assumption MAY be correct and it MAY not be correct. It may be traditional to load a family name as part of a double-barreled last name, but tradition is not law and many traditions get changed and revised and in some cases totrally ignored by people ALL the time. If you are unable to document it, then what makes you believe your assumption is correct and I don't make assuimptions for the reasons I have outlined. I recognize that PBH, might be P/B/H and it might be P/BH, in view of the fields that Ken has given us, entering P/B/H is something that every user can enter every time with no additional research or knowledge. If you can document P//BH great do it, I'll back it, if you can't then don't use "I think" and "my culture says this or that". You don't see me saying that, because my culture is irrelevant, I don't care what the fields are called, I see three pieces of data and three fields, and we have a procedure for handling more than three. So that is where we start, because every user can do it every time with no additional knowledge other than what is on the screen. I am amused at the current attempt to catalog Common Names for all of us, especially since some of the users involved have correctly pointed out that not every users will come here and read the forums, so how are those people to know what has been done. Some users don't even check their votes or may even be unaware that there is a voting system. The system HAS to be easy to implement independent of ANY particular cultural proclivities and the system I have described does that and eneables the data based on nothing more than what is seen On Screen to be entered by everybody in every instance. You have to try and decide wehether it is a family name, which could lead us down a bad road. Let's take an amusing possibility, a bit bizzare granted but... George George George. I would do this as G/G/G, someone might thing it should be GGG// because George is a first name, someone else might think G//GG because George is family name and someone else might rationally conclude //GGG because George is a last name. Now the guy is unknown and you can provide NO documenmtation. OK Hot shot, pop quiz....what do you do? G/G/G seems best based on what we have been given, three fields three separate and distinct pieces of data, any other way is dependent upon on someone's cultural issues which MAY or may NOT be accurate. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!! CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it. Outta here
Billy Video |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 21,610 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Gadgeteer: Quote: Quoting Gadgeteer:
Quote: Quoting RHo:
Quote: Quoting Gadgeteer:
Quote: Is it important to have the names in the'correct' field? Why would you want different fields at all if you are willing to parse the name by a simple word rule?
I don't. I could happily live with the 1 field.
As long as the actor filter could search on sub-string, then I don't see the advantage of 2 or 3 fields.
Does anyone actually have a use for them? Stuart: I won't disagree ONE name field would solve..all of this. However, that is not what we have been given, unless we are going to universally decide to start ignoring TWO of the fields.<gulp> Sorry, Ken noot trying to start trouble. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!! CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it. Outta here
Billy Video |
| | T!M | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 8,736 |
| Posted: | | | | Skip: as for your example, I'd go for G/G/G as well, so you don't have to worry there... But hey, maybe we should indeed start bugging Ken about going to back to a single name field. No parsing at all - wouldn't that be nice... |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,694 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote: Quoting Gadgeteer:
Quote: Not at the moment. But I was suggesting a 'standard' that we could adopt and add to the rules. Yes of course and the old rules committee has tried this in the past and has not succeeded. And I'm grateful about this failure. God forbid we should have anything standardized to make it easier for everybody. Once again, this is about what goes into the online DB. What you want in your personal DB is irrelevant. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 Make America Great Again! |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,694 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote: Quoting Gadgeteer:
Quote: At the risk of repeating myself, we just need a common, understandable & indisputable default starting standard, with the provision of documentation to allow for differing from the default. At the risk of repeating myself: this will NEVER be solved as long as the name of the field doesn't match - even if only in the eyes of some of us - with what we're to enter into it. It is beyond me why you would want to introduce another discrepancy between the name of the field and its usage!
The "production year" issue is far from solved, too: try "correcting" to production year to 2003 when the end credits give a clear 2002 copyright date on a couple of profiles... Despite the rules, it's very hard to convince the no-voters, let me assure you.
Without renaming (or removing!) the field, you can put me down for a firm "no!". It will never be solved as long as there are one or two or three who aren't willing to compromise, and who seem to prefer personal preference over a standard. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 Make America Great Again! |
| | T!M | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 8,736 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote: It will never be solved as long as there are one or two or three who aren't willing to compromise, and who seem to prefer personal preference over a standard. True! I'm willing to compromise. How about you? |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,694 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting EnryWiki: Quote: Methinx the Rules should set different standards for different nationalities.
If we are talking of an American actor, we could presume that the "word(s) in between" actually is his/her Middle Name, unless proven otherwise.
If the actor is from a country where the Middle Name concept does not exist, using it would be nonsense in my view, and just bring confusion, so the "standard" should be a *national* standard, according to local usage.
...Unless Ken changes the fields to "first word in the name", "words in between", "last word in the name"! Nearly everybody has a middle name, regardless of what culture you come from. It may be CALLED something different than "middle name" but it is what it is, nonetheless. Frankly, I couldn't care less what method they use in other countries. What is important here is what is done in Profiler. Make the online database as generic as possible, as standardized in as many areas as possible - for ALL USERS. If you don't like it that way, you can always do it differently in your local DB. How hard is it to figure that out? | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 Make America Great Again! |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,694 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote: Let me tell you something else: back when the middle name field was introduced, I actually used what you're now proposing: I put everything between the first and last words of the name in the middle name field (articles excluded, of course). But the Helena Bonham Carter debate opened my eyes. Since we've all agreed to parse her as Helena/Bonham Carter, I've been applying that same kind of logic to lots of other names. As I said before: "correct" parsing is basically impossible to document, but if we parse Helena Bonham Carter as H/B C, then I can't help parsing, say, Viola Kates Stimpson as V/K S, too. It's just trying to be consistent... To me, and to lots of others, that is a logical extension of the decision we made on Helena Bonham Carter.
The result of this decision, however, is a mess in the online database. For each and every name consisting of more than two words, there are multiple entries. After all this time, there STILL are for Helena Bonham Carter. To solve this mess, we need a very clear solution - not something that still leaves room for (cultural) interpretation or anything else. Something that will get all users, throughout the various regions/localities, on the same page, with no room for any difference of opinion. Any system that will let you enter H/B C but not V/K S will never work perfectly, because once you're convinced Helena/Bonham Carter is "correct", you can't help but look differently at a name like Viola Kates Stimpson. The Bonham Carter debate learned us that not everything that's in the middle is necessarily a "middle name". And asking for documentation won't help, as proof of "correct" parsing can almost never be found.
Going back to a single name field would be the easiest solution - with an improved search feature, I see no disadvantage with this whatsoever. For anything else, we should take any flexibility and interpretation out of the process entirely. If we keep calling it "first name", "middle name" and "last name", people from various parts of the world will keep applying their own definition of these terms to it - like I do myself. If we want to take all interpretation and various cultural backgrounds out of it, we need to to let go of names, but just look at the words. If we just look at the words instead of interpreting them, and simply parse First Word/Middle Word(s)/Last Word, with no interpretation whatsoever, then we could all agree. It wouldn't be pretty, but it would work. In other words, you've been applying your personal preferences, and the online DB be damned. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 Make America Great Again! |
| | T!M | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 8,736 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote: In other words, you've been applying your personal preferences, and the online DB be damned. Since the rules do not give any guidance on parsing names, that's what we all do. Every time you parse a name you're applying a personal preference - there's just no way around that at the moment. As I've indicated time and time again in this thread: I think it's time that we got some kind of "standard" in this department. I tried to make some suggestions and tried to show which areas may need special attention (the use of the term "name" for the fields causes different people to interpret its intended use differently). What was your contribution again? Oh, I remember: "do it by the rules". Yeah, that was helpful... | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,694 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote: Quoting Rifter:
Quote: It will never be solved as long as there are one or two or three who aren't willing to compromise, and who seem to prefer personal preference over a standard. True! I'm willing to compromise. How about you? First / Everything in the Middle / Last IS a compromise! Everybody ought to be happy with that since it violates all kinds of cultural taboos. Everybody has an ox getting gored. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 Make America Great Again! |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,694 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote: Quoting Rifter:
Quote: In other words, you've been applying your personal preferences, and the online DB be damned. Since the rules do not give any guidance on parsing names, that's what we all do. Every time you parse a name you're applying a personal preference - there's just no way around that at the moment. As I've indicated time and time again in this thread: I think it's time that we got some kind of "standard" in this department. I tried to make some suggestions and tried to show which areas may need special attention (the use of the term "name" for the fields causes different people to interpret its intended use differently). What was your contribution again? Oh, I remember: "do it by the rules". Yeah, that was helpful... I've advocated First/Everything Else/Last for a long, long time. Irrespective of cultural, traditional, social mores for naming. What was YOUR contribution back then? | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 Make America Great Again! |
| | T!M | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 8,736 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote: Quoting T!M:
Quote: Quoting Rifter:
Quote: It will never be solved as long as there are one or two or three who aren't willing to compromise, and who seem to prefer personal preference over a standard. True! I'm willing to compromise. How about you?
First / Everything in the Middle / Last IS a compromise! Everybody ought to be happy with that since it violates all kinds of cultural taboos. Everybody has an ox getting gored. And I've repeatedly said that I'd be willing to support that, if only we can stop calling that field ïn which you want to enter Everything in the Middle the "middle name" field. As long as it's called "middle name" field, a rather large number of users will use it to enter what they actually feel is a "middle name", and not just anything between the first and the last words they see. Regardless of that, I'd still prefer a single name field, and be done with it. Quoting Rifter: Quote: I've advocated First/Everything Else/Last for a long, long time. Irrespective of cultural, traditional, social mores for naming. What was YOUR contribution back then? The same as it is now. | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,759 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote: Let's take an amusing possibility, a bit bizzare granted but... George George George. Seeing this bizzare credit I would assume that it's a stage name and go by GGG//. Again I would be happy,if somebody with more knowledge would corect me later. And I would not correct any existing different parsing without having some documentation to do so. But my intitial guess would be GGG// completely conforming to the rules. |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,759 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote: Nearly everybody has a middle name I know a lot of people which have only one given name and one family name (none of these is double barrelled). |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,759 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote: First / Everything in the Middle / Last IS a compromise! Everybody ought to be happy with that since it violates all kinds of cultural taboos. Everybody has an ox getting gored. Then we should apply this also to all the exceptions which are already mentioned in the rules (stage names, articles, titles, jr et al...). If we do this that consequent, we could as well ask Ken to implement the one field solution. So the comment to your statement would be that I would not be happy. |
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|