 |
|
|
|
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... 5 6 7 8 9 ...12  Previous Next
|
|
Gold Audited Profiles - Proposal |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Winston Smith: Quote:
Your máster profile is entertaining and ill informed the reasons have been detailed in other threads. A terrific pipe dream. Tim. But completely unworkable. Credit lists ate not alesud universal and can and do vary from version to version, across regions or localities As always, you haven't read the entire post before starting your reply. This time, you seem to have missed the following line from my post: "Of course, the system would need to allow for an occasional deviation". | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 485 |
| | Posted: | | | | Just a reminder for the white paper to be. I cannot get rid of the impression that a lot of people see birth year as a 'set in stone' given. But birth year has been a relatively recent but not optimal solution to resolve between different persons with otherwise identical names. As DVDp stands now, it is the only field we can use as such other than resorting to name changes, whatever the nature of the change, to preserve proper linking. (There is also the 'credited as', but that has a slightly different intent). Yet, IIRC, Invelos/Ken has indicated he'd like to replace it with something better ASAP but definitly in the illusive 4.0.
This is also an area where the current rules cause a lot of mayhem/discussion/whatever you'd call it. Not the rule to make a distinction with a birth year, but the rule to leave it out when 'not needed'. This has resulted in a whole labyrinth of threads regarding the need for a birth year for some names, laments on unnecessary birth years present in the online db, 'Sherlock Holmes' threads on how to find correct birth years, etc. So, in short, one more area linked to cast and crew were fresh ideas might help.
Of course, as a 'gold profile' needs to fit into the program, any solution within this initiative must take account of the 'birth year'. But having said that, I'd like to keep an open mind to see if better solutions present themselves and see how we, including Invelos, could move forward. | | | Eric
If it is important, say it. Otherwise, let silence speak. | | | | Last edited: by eommen |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 485 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Winston Smith: Quote:
Yves
Leave IMDb out of this. ... Skip, I respectfully disagree. Whatever we discuss, IMDb is the elephant in the room. Whether we mention it or ignore it. Nobody disputes its popularity on the net. Nobody here disputes it often mentioned inaccuracies etc. But every now and again a newby pops up in the fora and claims either universal knowledge from IMDb or states that it at least is good enough for him (disregarding possible legal consequences for Invelos). Whatever this initiative produces, it cannot ignore the elephant. And I am NOT saying we should align with it. There is a good reason for mediadogg to emphasise the interests of Invelos! | | | Eric
If it is important, say it. Otherwise, let silence speak. |
| | Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
with names allowing a perfect linking (which also means to unlink different persons with same name). You do understand, that under Invelos's DB design, this can never be achieved (without a serious change in methods from a programming standpoint)? And if we are going to implement something outside of Invelos, to work with DVDProfiler, it can not work (within the rules and confines of the program). Charlie | | | | Last edited: by CharlieM |
| | Registered: May 26, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,879 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting eommen: Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:
Quote:
Yves
Leave IMDb out of this. ...
Skip, I respectfully disagree. Whatever we discuss, IMDb is the elephant in the room. Whether we mention it or ignore it. Exactly. Also, if you read Yves post I don't think he's not saying that he wants to recreate IMDB. He's saying we already have it. And he's right. There are many profiles that are IMDB clones, and many others that are partly IMDB clones. Yves brought up some of the ways in which the current database has cloned IMDB (unverified uncredited actors, roles). | | | If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
-- Thorin Oakenshield |
| | Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
While I applaud any effort to improve the quality of the online database, and am willing to help in any way I can, I'm convinced that the only way to *really* knock things into shape is a complete overhaul of the program which uses one set of cast and crew per film, rather than per DVD. Of course, the system would need to allow for an occasional deviation, but generally, that's what we need.
And essentially, that's what this proposal boils down to as well: to create a "master" profile, which can then be copied to each and every other profile for the same film. The principle is the same, but rather than the system being changed to propagate such data automatically, here all subsequent profiles would still need to be updated manually, and every change to such a "master" profile (such as a shifted common name, or the addition of a newly found - and needed - birth year) would again need to be propagated through all other profiles for the same film.
So ideally, the "one set of cast and crew per film, rather than per DVD" approach needs to be inplemented by Invelos, instead of us trying to create some kind of workaround that can never work as good. This sums up my feeling quite well. Nothing is perfect including invelos and I'm enjoying the brainstorming of the community in its efforts to improve the database. The process of implementing changes can sometimes be difficult but working together is the only way to make things better. I'm hopefull the efforts to improve the database will come to fruition. |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:
Quote:
with names allowing a perfect linking (which also means to unlink different persons with same name).
You do understand, that under Invelos's DB design, this can never be achieved (without a serious change in methods from a programming standpoint)? And if we are going to implement something outside of Invelos, to work with DVDProfiler, it can not work (within the rules and confines of the program).
On the contrary, the program allows perfect linking. The problem is to define how to choose the common name and the identifier to put in BY field, and this is just a rule problem. | | | | Images from movies |
| | Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting eommen: Quote:
...Invelos/Ken has indicated he'd like to replace it with something better ASAP but definitly in the illusive 4.0.
...I'd like to keep an open mind to see if better solutions present themselves and see how we, including Invelos, could move forward. It might be that Ken would implement the changes more quickly if he has a template to work with. |
| | Registered: June 15, 2012 |  Posts: 428 |
| | Posted: | | | | I kinda agree with this as well. I know there's always a bit of opposition to copy and paste of cast/crew etc as the original might not be right, so having it by movie suddenly makes copy/paste a necessity. That combined with an area to add extras for those times there is a variance (like in extended versions where the cast member didn't end up on the cutting room floor..) would make things a lot smoother.
Checking would be easier and much better as we all make mistakes. I know this cause I just made a big mistake (not cast/crew) in a contribution. Have to open my first ever support ticket for a contrib...
(fx: goes and bangs head against wall) |
| | Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,463 |
| | Posted: | | | | Whew!  "Feeling a bit overwhelmed, you are?" Yes, Yoda, I don't know if I can do it ... Anybody who wants to go back, while the editing window is open and pare down some of those long posts - would be helpful. Alternatively, maybe put at the end, something like, "here's the bottom line:" (1) blah (2) blah (3) final blah Try to give me a fighting chance of writing this report. Thanks. | | | Thanks for your support.
Free Plugins available here.
Advanced plugins available here.
Hey, new product!!! BDPFrog. |
| | Registered: March 16, 2007 | | Posts: 280 |
| | Posted: | | | | 1) All four listed objectives depend on some (as yet undefined) need to create an external environment to duplicate the work done in DVDP. All four objectives can already be accomplished in DVDP or these forums, at least superficially.
2) Motivation: "To improve the quality of contributions to the database, the accuracy of the data, and the ability to protect a quality profile from damage."
3) "Quality" and "accuracy" are left undefined. We're left only with the vague notion that this new database will be 'better' in some way than the existing database.
4) The only Task that is not organization and setup for this new environment is #3: "Refine the existing set of Invelos rules to resolve the known issues". (Defining trusted contributors is another organizational task.)
So in essence, this all boils down to resolving issues with the rules, and its necessarily associated tangent, making the program and main database capable of dealing with the needs of the contributors.
Resolving issues with the rules generally involves one of three issues:
1) People with unresolvable conflicts in how certain things should be handled, and thus not being able to come to a consensus.
2) No/slow action on Invelos's part, both in participating in the discussions, and in updating the rules.
3) Limitations of the database design that prevent certain solutions from being accomplished until the program itself is updated (again, slow progress on Invelos's part).
The proposed task #3 implicitly suggests that it can get around issue #1. Will see how well that works out.
Therefore ultimately this is about getting around limitations that have arisen due to issues 2 and 3. In other words, Invelos is not progressing at a pace that sufficiently assists its users to perform the task its program is for.
There was a similar issue back in the Intervocative days that led to the creation of the contribution rules themselves. There was a lot of push for fixing issues as things transitioned to Invelos, but it soon hit a wall, and other than very minor changes to go along with program updates, I haven't seen much improvement at all over what things were like 5 years ago.
So, is this mostly a push to get some progress on issues where Invelos has been stagnant? |
| | Registered: March 16, 2007 | | Posts: 280 |
| | Posted: | | | | As an aside, the idea of having profiles for 'films' separate from profiles for DVDs, and then being able to link the physical media profiles to the content profiles, is interesting. Would likely help solve a lot of issues with the film title vs the DVD title, and such. Of course it would require a massive revamp of the entire program design.
Would need 'original' and 'current' values for tons of fields (eg: original aspect ratio vs Pan & Scan), and additional values above the film level for cast and crew for localization. Then that itself would need to be linkable (ie: original release vs low-cost budget release of the same DVD). And of course the different variations on editions or localizations.
So you'd end up with UPCs containing links to discs containing links to renditions containing links to films.
Gets a bit complicated. Still, interesting. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
May I suggest something, Actual Crew entries, with a tag to the corresponding field within profiler..
I'd support that. Or as I like to call them: Real Credits. To get away from shoehorned generalisations. It would definitely help with many of the ambigious cases we struggle to fit within the rules today, or can't contribute at all because they don't match the crew table exactly. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Btw I have read a couple of comment about cultures being disrespected.. nothing is further from the truth and shows distinct lack of understanding of databases. The data is what it is, we chose not to follow Hollywood in all caps only for aesthetic reasons and a unified appearance but that doesnt change the data in any way, it just is what it is, even ken colé has noted this. Cultural adjustments can be made locally, of course. Naturally if a film includes any accented data, it should be reflected in the data whenever possible, but ad i have said before if accent data does not appear onscreen then its not there and should not be included for the online. For those who like to fillibuster about upper and lower case, please note that there are many instances of accented upper case in credits, a technical error most times, but still part of the data, in such a case when we go to lower case we are "fixing" the tech error in some eyes, but the reality is we are simply following where the data goes.
What many people do seem ti understand is that the online cannot be everything to everybody. True enough and definitely a factor when the rules were designed, in fact that recognition simplified the process. But for some users their recognition of this simple fact arena to include as long as it does what I want it to do. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,463 |
| | Posted: | | | | Skip, sent you a PM. | | | Thanks for your support.
Free Plugins available here.
Advanced plugins available here.
Hey, new product!!! BDPFrog. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 485 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kinematics: Quote:
As an aside, the idea of having profiles for 'films' separate from profiles for DVDs, and then being able to link the physical media profiles to the content profiles, is interesting. Would likely help solve a lot of issues with the film title vs the DVD title, and such. Of course it would require a massive revamp of the entire program design.
Would need 'original' and 'current' values for tons of fields (eg: original aspect ratio vs Pan & Scan), and additional values above the film level for cast and crew for localization. Then that itself would need to be linkable (ie: original release vs low-cost budget release of the same DVD). And of course the different variations on editions or localizations.
So you'd end up with UPCs containing links to discs containing links to renditions containing links to films.
Gets a bit complicated. Still, interesting. I think few will be disputing it'll be a sizeble effort. Depends a bit on internal table naming, but very soon just about every query the code makes needs a revision. I think it is the main reason Invelos hasn't taken up on that often made suggestion, so far. Doesn't mean IMO it should be postponed forever; there are so many inconsistencies in the user interface that beg for a redesign. Just to name a few: I encountered at least three different places where one can edit reports; edit retailers and studios can be started from the menu but to edit cast or crew you'll have to edit a profile and when ready click everywhere on OK or otherwise all changes will be rolled back. Luckily, this is not the scope of this project. Definitely is one for Invelos. But yes, if we want to make this project work across all localities we'd better start with the common denominator of all releases, IOW the movie itself. Otherwise for any movie we'd have for x localities x teams defining x gold profiles. We'll never have enough people. I acknowledge possible variations in local releases, but let's keep an eye on the 80/20 rule. And on credit scrolls, my hunch is it'll be closer to 99/1, 99 being the common credits across just about any territory. | | | Eric
If it is important, say it. Otherwise, let silence speak. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 5 6 7 8 9 ...12 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |