Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:

If I remember correctly, the credit lookup is based on the 'credited as' name.  It is that way because that is what the actor is 'credited as'.

So, yes, changing the 'credited as' portion would sway the results.

Yes, the CLT is based on the 'Credited As' name. But you can not change that, anyway, as it has to be contributed as it in the film's credits.
The only name you could "choose" about (if the Rule let you) is the "Name", id est the linking name, if different from the Credited As name, and such a contribution would not sway the results of the CLT. As far as I understand. 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Hal, I don't believe the difference is subtle at all. There is major difference between the two.

Skip

I understand there is a major difference.  The subtlety is in the use of the two phrases using the same two words in a different order.

All I am saying is that using the same two words in a diffferent order to describe two distinctly different fields can quite easily cause confusion.  If we can agree to use two distinct names for the two distinct fields, I believe it would facilitate the conversation.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I understand there is a major difference.  The subtlety is in the use of the two phrases using the same two words in a different order.

All I am saying is that using the same two words in a diffferent order to describe two distinctly different fields can quite easily cause confusion.  If we can agree to use two distinct names for the two distinct fields, I believe it would facilitate the conversation.

I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't change anything...at least not for me.  The actor name, per Ken and the rules, is supposed to be one of two things:  the way the actor is listed in the credits OR the most common way he is credited.  It is not supposed to be a way for us to create a standardized name.

This means, using the example from earlier in this thread:

'Robert Downey Jr.' in 90 films
'Robert Downey, Jr' in 10 films
Actor name is 'Robert Downey Jr.'

I know it's starting to get off-topic, but the biggest problem I have with the credit lookup tool is that I'll try different variations of a name and I'll get a list of titles that I don't own so I can't check to see if it's been profiled correctly. And I can't check by comparing title names because each title will usually appear at least once under each variation, so there is no actual way of confirming the accuracy of the tool unless you own every single title listed under a particular name!

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I understand there is a major difference.  The subtlety is in the use of the two phrases using the same two words in a different order.

All I am saying is that using the same two words in a diffferent order to describe two distinctly different fields can quite easily cause confusion.  If we can agree to use two distinct names for the two distinct fields, I believe it would facilitate the conversation.

I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't change anything...at least not for me.  The actor name, per Ken and the rules, is supposed to be one of two things:  the way the actor is listed in the credits OR the most common way he is credited.  It is not supposed to be a way for us to create a standardized name.

This means, using the example from earlier in this thread:

'Robert Downey Jr.' in 90 films
'Robert Downey, Jr' in 10 films
Actor name is 'Robert Downey Jr.'

I am well aware of what the Rules and Ken have stated, and I have never inferred that contributions should be done any way but the way that Ken has instructed us to do them.

Perhaps this discussion should be moved out of the "Contribution Forum" so that it can be discussed without every other post quoting the Rules.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I know it's starting to get off-topic, but the biggest problem I have with the credit lookup tool is that I'll try different variations of a name and I'll get a list of titles that I don't own so I can't check to see if it's been profiled correctly. And I can't check by comparing title names because each title will usually appear at least once under each variation, so there is no actual way of confirming the accuracy of the tool unless you own every single title listed under a particular name!

Exactly!  It is pretty useless today except to insure that we use the IMDb version of the name as the "Actor name" AKA "Common Name" AKA "As Credited" name, etc., etc.

Right. Often you will find every "film unit" listed under each name variant in different variants of the film name. So really the lookup tool at this point is providing a count of which name variant is listed under the most film name variants. That's not a solid foundation to build name-linking on in my opinion.

The lookup tool can be useful to a point, but the fact that we're locked into a must-use rule, it's counter-productive.

I'm not going to blindly follow a rule which I know will cause me to have to change the data again later. That doesn't mean I'll break the rule. It just means I'll abstain. And that's not what the tool was created for.

Ken has stated that the tool doesn't propagate errors, and that's true only in the sense that the credited-as data will always improve over time. But it's the name (common name, base name) which will go in a false direction until more than 50% of the data is credited-as.

My 2,602 Owned Profiles represent about 0.8% of the total database of 337,671 profiles. My data's pretty good, and I just can't set up my names/common names/based names to match data I know to be wrong, only to have to change it all back after the rest of the world finishes their "as credited" work.

There have been situations where I've owned enough of the film units for a name so that I could verify enough "credited as" myself and analyze all of the title variants and I could then prove the most-credited name. But that takes a long time per name. I just don't see that such a level of detail would be tolerated by many contributors.

It's really frustrating.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

I am well aware of what the Rules and Ken have stated, and I have never inferred that contributions should be done any way but the way that Ken has instructed us to do them.

Perhaps this discussion should be moved out of the "Contribution Forum" so that it can be discussed without every other post quoting the Rules.

I guess I should have been clearer on this.  I happen to agree with Ken.  I see no reason to complicate the contribution process by throwing in arbitrary standards.  Using the most commonly credited form of an actors name seems to be, at least for me, the easiest and best solution.  It is based on data that we were supposed to be entering all along.  The fact that some people are assuming the db is filled with IMDb data is besides the point...again, IMHO.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
It would be easier to me to throw in a comma before a Jr. and to never have to consider it again.

Yup, that's the point. Again: we are talking of the linking names, which have a practical purpose, but are not so practical with the current system!, not of the actual credits, which are to be copied from film credits as they are.


Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
At the moment, I am not using 'common names'.  Every contribution I make is made based on the end credits.  For the most part, I refuse to use the 'credited as' feature until the credits are fixed.

Well, I personally understand why you do that, but I fear that strictly speaking that is not what the Rule asks us to do.

Quoting the Credits Rules:

Quote:
Use the "Credited As" field where the person's name differs from the credited name.

To determine whether to enter the name directly as credited, or to use the "Credited As" field, use the Credit Lookup tool.