So, in the spirit of consistency, shouldn't we stop contributing child profiles for TV sets and use the "future" tab system and episode dividers for them as well?

That was a rhetorical question, for anyone who did not recognize it!

We have gotten burned in the past trying to make "changes" to how we do profiling based on "purported" new features that are about to be released.  I've made my feelings on this known in the past, but I will re-iterate:

Profiling today must be based on what is in the Rules today!  To do anything else is sheer lunacy.  Ken's "ideas" could change tomorrow and then we would be right where Skip doesn't want to be; a ton of profiles to fix!

And just one more point.  The fact that Skip does more profiles than any four of the rest of us (which is not true by the way), doesn't mean squat.  It is not his personal database.  More work for Skip is one of the dumbest reasons I can think of for not making the database right according to the Rules.  Skip does more profiles than anyone else because that's what Skip wants to do!  I'm sick of his constantly rubbing that in people's faces and denigrating others for not contributing what he feels are levels deserving of his respect.  In case he hasn't noticed, the EULA for this program makes ZERO requirements on the user to make contributions to the main database and furthermore, does not restrict people from expressing their opinions, concerns, gripes and bitches in the forums based on their contribution levels.  He needs to get over it!

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
I'm sure that tabs would become the new CoO if they were introduced.

Just to address the point of disc count, I don't assign collection numbers to profiles that I don't wish to "count" (as many others do from what I've seen); therefore, my highest collection number is the figure I use for the amount of DVDs I have. The figure that the program lists as "Total DVDs" is really "Total Profiles". Pretty easy.

Quoting Mole:

Quote:
Can't say I've ever needed an excuse, Kathy, and what with having two teenage daughters...........................

As a parent of 4 teenagers, I'll drink to that!

I think the disc count argument is completely invalid.

It isn't our fault the program doesn't know a "Side A" or a "Side B" Disc ID profile from any other. It seems to me that you would just make sure they are assigned properly and tell the program how to count them. Programming is Ken's little red wagon, not ours. If proper disc count needs to be achieved, you alter the "disc count" part of the program, not rework the data base so the disc count comes out right. It just seems completely backwards to me.

Just as an endcap to this entire discussion, all the profile updates for the Abbott and Costello title in question have been declined.    The irony, of course, is that the two new profiles added to create the four children have been accepted!  Strangely, those two profiles that have been accepted look identical to the ones that have just been declined...go figure. 

I've learned my lesson and will just keep my A&C fixes to myself.  Sorry for those of you who were looking foward to these and congrats to Skip!

I'm not sure if we really want to go down that road, Kathy.  For the most part, these things work themselves out.  It's a very small number of titles where one person can gum up the works and if people don't vote, there's nothing you can do.  On this particular title there were only 4 total votes for the two child profiles in question.  When one guy votes no, rightly or wrongly, that's 25% against.  Presumably a sizable number for the screeners.

             

Skip

I see them as rejected, dj.. I never saw them approved. Use one profile per disc.

Skip

Well dj, since they shot down the Side A Profile and his Master profile where he was trying to turn a TWO disc set into four, it makes sense that they would also shoot down Side B.

Skip

Like I said, I'll resubmit and hopfully get a reason this time.  It should be interesting to see how that reason gets reconciled against the fact that the side B's were accepted.  Frankly, I doubt there is a good reason.  I suspect it's just that they were overwhelmed this time around and simply kneejerked on the "no" vote.

If nothing else, after a 3 year dry spell you have half the data.