Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Correct spelling of a name...

In the world of DVD Profiler, "correct spelling" of cast and crew names means nothing outside the context of the credits.  Until you can learn to accept that you'll be a frustrated man.

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

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
In 99,99% of credits, names are correctly spelled.

Wow!  You've watched a lot of film credits. 

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

Quoting T!M:

Quote:

My findings are that about 1 in a 1000 films has a completely flawless set of cast and crew credits.

Please, prove it. I'm sure of my percentage.
Instead of your 45000 contributions, you could perhaps just watch movies until after credits... 

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
After this attempt of diversion, perhaps we could speak of the real problem...

We know what the real problem is -- you want an actor profiler instead of a DVD Profiler.

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

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
I want a database that works : sorting, searching, linking, filtering functions giving reliable results.

And haven't I read you say many times that yours does just that?

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

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:


When contribution rules ask us to contribute non-working data, they should be changed.

Whether or not this data "should be changed" or not has been debated for years.

Whether or not it WILL be changed is up to Ken and there is a process to implement such changes.

The first step is to bring the topic to the rules committee and per Ken "Discuss and formulate the rules that help shape DVD Profiler's online database".

This topic was brought to the committee to discuss on 8/20/13 but after 2 pages of posts the issue lacks support and hasn't generated any discussion in 3 days.

If you want to actually get the rules changed then you need to get the rules committee to discuss and formulate a plan to submit to Ken.

Yves,

It might be that you only see one correct answer. If you only want it done one way, your way, then I'm afraid your wish will never be filled.

"Vocal users" have valid ideas and since the majority of people agree with them you need to incorporate them if you want change.

If a middle ground can not be found then nothing is going to change.

While posting a response on another thread I quoted Ken regarding these types of issues. Please notice where Ken says that "Agreement on how it "should be" is neither possible nor (thankfully) necessary."

"One-off rulings on individual titles are a waste of time - there is always a new twist available to cast a slightly different shade of gray, and users cannot be expected to scour the forums on a title-by-title basis.  Similarly, refining and complicating the rules to satisfactorily contain each of these new variants is an exercise in futility.

Local databases can support an infinite variety of variants for title and other fields, and the local locks are available to make those changes permanent.  With this in mind, hopefully the supporters on both sides of this and other similar debates can agree that the direction of a decision here is less important that the fact of a decision.  Consistency for submission to the online is possible and what we should shoot for.  Agreement on how it "should be" is neither possible nor (thankfully) necessary.

We'll be implementing a global edit for contribution evaluator use.  This will allow us to make a decision on a particular range of titles and standardize them directly.  In this particular case, the titles will be Men in Black, Men in Black II and Men in Black III.  Details on the forthcoming implementation will be posted before we begin making any profile changes."