Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
It is funny (sad ?) to see that some of us do not understand that creating a special forum for a system is equivalent to take the decision to keep that system. The day Ken opens this new forum will mean that we are stuck to what we have.

Completely disagree.  How much effort does it take to create a new forum?  Probably not very much.  Even if there is a new system put in place there would be a lot of questions and work to be done to update all the current profiles and the new forum would be an ideal place to hold those discussions.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
But why do some users,  very happy with what we have, give that subject for their threads : "The continued nightmare we call parsing : XX" 

I assume you're referring to me? I've done that, yeah, because I do in fact consider DVD Profiler's parsing problems to be a nightmare - the fact that there are no rules on parsing whatsoever (anything goes) doesn't help. I even tend to include documentation to justify calling it a "nightmare" in the form of CLT counts for the various methods - when those are evenly split, and the voting balance on the poll included in such threads turns out to be evenly split as well, as we've seen many times, then yeah, I don't think calling it a "nightmare' is out of line.

But you're making two big mistakes here. First: if you were, indeed, referring to me, then you're also claiming that I'm "very happy with what we have", and that's not true. For instance, I've just made clear how I feel about parsing, and as for common names, I'd like to see a never-changing, unique identifier for every person in our database instead of ever-changing common names combined with a messy mixture of real and fake birth years to keep the credits of different people from incorrectly linking together. So instead of being "very happy", I'm merely trying to make the best of what we've got - trying to follow the rules and still have an accurate and fully linked up cast and crew database.

Your second big mistake is the same as it was back on page two, and you'll probably stick to for the next dozen pages or so as well: where we discuss these things doesn't matter. You're fighting against a purely cosmetic issue: where we deal with in the (already aptly-named) "Contribution Forum" or in a new one, doesn't change anything. The common name system remains exactly the same no matter in which subforum we talk about it. The forums offer plenty of opportunities to talk/complain about that and suggest change, but this thread is not about changing the system at all - it's only about a purely cosmetical move of all subject-related matters to it's own new subforum. I just don't see what you think you're gaining by opposing this.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
  In fact, linking ignores parsing completely.

Interesting...

And how do you explain that ?

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
  In fact, linking ignores parsing completely.

Interesting...

And how do you explain that ?

I can't explain that.  Seems odd that the CLT would ignore parsing, while the program doesn't. 

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I can't explain that.  Seems odd that the CLT would ignore parsing, while the program doesn't. 

The program does ignore pqrsing for identical names. The program requires a birth year to have 2 different parsings of Kristin Scott Thomas. I just tried it.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
The program requires a birth year to have 2 different parsings of Kristin Scott Thomas. I just tried it.

Not at all.

Looks like I'll have to correct myself:

My copy of the program requires a birth year to have 2 different parsings of Kristin Scott Thomas. I just tried it.

I have a Kristin//Scott Thomas. I'm unable to add a Kristin/Scott/Thomas. I get an error that says "Unable to save changes. A duplicate record exists."

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:

I have a Kristin//Scott Thomas. I'm unable to add a Kristin/Scott/Thomas. I get an error that says "Unable to save changes. A duplicate record exists."

Very strange. Which version do you use ? I have the last one (built 1392) and get no error for the same action.

I have the same.    Would anyone else care to try this?

Wow. I have no idea. I used a dual installation during the beta and have since resumed using the non-beta path. Can anyone else duplicate my experience?