Quoting T!M:

Quote:

Again: have you seen any examples of people linking name variants together that don't actually belong together? Can you honestly say you've seen it? I haven't.

Well, up until now that was difficult to do because you had to document it. Now that you don't, I think it'll happen more often.  Maybe not with some of the more experienced contributors, but with new contributors... I don't know. 

Quoting Broven:

Quote:
I think it'll happen more often.

So we'll have to wait and see. I actually do have a bit of faith in the users. If I spot a mistake, I'll either point it out to the contributor, or will try to fix it myself. That is, again, exactly how the system is supposed to work.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
If you need no further clarification or input, that's great.  That doesn't give you the right to tell others that they don't.

And if you read back, you'll find that I never told that to anyone. I did indeed say that I felt things were crystal clear, but that was all. I don't appreciate being accused of things I haven't done.

You quoted GSyren who quoted Pantheon and then agreed with Pantheon's sentiment which was that further discussion was pointless when you posted this:

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
If we are not sure how to interpret the ruling, discussing it seems far from pointless.

Well, it's crystal clear to me. I'd also say that Gerri's pro-active approach in manually pre-approving m.cellophane's contributions despite unfounded no-votes from the usual suspects kind of takes away any doubts, wouldn't you?

It is not necessary to put words in your mouth.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
It is not necessary to put words in your mouth.

Yet you seem to delight in it. FYI: I was obviously referring to GSYren's "not sure how to interpret the ruling" comment only - I never addressed the discussing whatsoever - you discuss all you want. It just didn't occur to me that I would have to cut his comment off mid-sentence so to not open myself up to all kinds of wild accusations from you.  Apparently I was wrong.

Again: I never made that point. Maybe I quoted someone who had previously quoted someone else, who said, well, whatever. I was just surprised to see GSYren saying he wasn't sure "how to interpret the ruling", and I commented on that. That's all.

I'll throw you a bone, though, and say that now the discussion has deteriorated to this level, I actually am starting to feel that further discussion might be pointless... 

It did not come across that way when I read it.

I accept your explanation and regret my earlier trigger-happy response.

Personally, I believe this shifts the onus of proof from the contributor to the voter.  That's a mistake as far as I'm concerned, because the contribution history will not contain the information we need to support what's there.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Personally, I believe this shifts the onus of proof from the contributor to the voter.  That's a mistake as far as I'm concerned, because the contribution history will not contain the information we need to support what's there.

+1

If this is the way DVDP is going, we might as well throw the baby out with the bath water and start using IMDb  

And if that happens I won't be contributing anymore, what would be the point to have somebody change everything because of their say-so.

I have already seen people changing some of my documented approved submissions with un-documented changes.

Steve

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting snarbo:

Quote:
I have already seen people changing some of my documented approved submissions with un-documented changes.

The important question is: are the changes correct? If there's a specific error, you've got a valid reason to vote against it. However, if you can't find anything wrong with the proposed changes, then where's the problem?

But again, you're putting the responsibility on the voters/screeners instead of the contributors where it belongs.

Quoting snarbo:

Quote:
I am finding people quoting CLT despite the fact the at times the CLT is incorrect due to IMDb mined data despite me finding actors own websites, but hey don't worry about the actors own site just use IMDb + CLT.

I'm with you all the way on that. There is a huge chunk of IMDb-data yet to be fixed before the CLT results will actually become entirely accurate. To do that, however, we need as many contributors as we possibly can - and from what I've seen, this decision by Ken seems to have helped to improve that. We're going to be stuck with shifting common names for the foreseeable future, but that's a direct result from the "use the most-credited form" principle. It'll still happen when ALL profiles have been audited: then too the next film that comes out might change someone's common name. There is a big difference, however, between shifting common names and actually lumping together different persons under the same common name.

For the record, and probably stating the obvious: the problem with "actor's own websites" is that they don't always necessarily stroke with our "use the most-credited form" practice. Someone's "currently preferred" or "real" name may not necessarily be the name variant they've mostly been credited as throughout their career. So even they don't provide definitive answers...

Quote:
and the CLT doesn't give the correct parsing either, ie Daniel/Dae/Kim when it should be Daniel//Dae Kim.

You have my agreement on that as well. I would absolutely LOVE to see any kind of guidance into this whole parsing disaster - I'm guessing many people wouldn't know that it's supposed to be Daniel//Dae Kim - but again, it really hasn't got anything to do with the topic at hand.

I would prefer (if at all possible Ken?) for a Actor database to be used as the basis of all the actor names as has been suggested elsewhere in the forum's which would include all known variants for the actor(s).

And instead of the DB the way it is at the moment perhaps as has also been suggested a profile for each Title and not for each EAN/UPC, surely this is possible? if (as of the moment) a title can have various Disc ID's per region could not it be feasible to have One Title with various EAN/UPC's therefore reducing the server space required to accomodate all the duplicate data.

Nine times out of ten the cast / crew listings are going to be indentical, yes I known in some instances we will have regional variations (different actors for voice overs) but in general the cast used at point of filming will be the same, take for example "X-Men 3 The Final Stand" according to the online DB there are 29 versions - but there is only 1 cast list.

Or am I being naive?

Steve