| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
You are misrepresenting the facts here. Unless I missed something, nobody has stated that it is the 'established way to parse names'. It is the way some of us would prefer it and the way some of us have agreed to do it. I understand what you are saying. But indeed I think that you are missing something here. Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Most contributors i am aware of in Contributions are on the same page, right now. (...) Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
If we are so wrong about "most" users following the A/B/C/ convention and you are right that "most" users do not follow that convention,(...) Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
We have established a siimple method, Enry. (...) Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
(...) My position and the position most of us have been using is A/B/C. (...)
Again, I doubt the most of us part if by "us" you are talking about the whole profiler community.
So start a poll!  Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
(...) And I believe that's why we agreed to do it that way unless documented otherwise as Unicus says. Quoting hal9g: Quote:
I'm part of "we".  Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
bbbbb:
This has been addressed in this thread, I believe. First Name=First Name, Last Name-Last Name, everything else is Middle Name. So unless youy can document otherwise it would be Charles/ Bruce Adam/ Salkeld.
Skip Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Correct, with one samll proviso. IF you can document that the parsing should be some other way, then do so and provide your supporting documentation.
Skip |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
(...) RHO brings up a well-known actress H/B/C who is incredibly easy to document, he should try picking a name that nobody knows and try the same argument.(...) And even so it is incredibly easy to do in this specific case, nobody actually does document her name in his contributions but still adding H//B C (which is of course correct). | | | | Last edited: by RHo |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
You are misrepresenting the facts here. Unless I missed something, nobody has stated that it is the 'established way to parse names'. It is the way some of us would prefer it and the way some of us have agreed to do it.
I understand what you are saying. But indeed I think that you are missing something here.
(...)
Indeed, I may be missing something...and it my be something as simple as the way I am reading those statements. I am reading them in the context of 'some of us'. It seems you are reading them differently. I will admit that, depending on your point of view, you could get the idea that this is an established standard...which is why I am trying to make it clear that it is not. To be very clear, there is no standard for parsing, other than the few cases listed in the rules. A situation that needs to be corrected. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | The only reason I think some sort of documentation is needed for changing the way a name was initially parsed is that without a statement of WHY the change is apprpriate, the next person who disagrees will change it back -- or to something else. This is nearly a dictionary definition of ping-ponging. If the initial contribution is A/B/C and someone changes it to AB//C or A//BC and doesn't say why (something more than because I feel or know it's right that way), the initial contributor is well within his rights to contribut a change back to A/B/C. Unless someone documents what is "correct" all we have is individual interpretations of what it should be.
Frankly, I find this somewhat of a silly argument -- one hardly worth 9 or 10 pages -- but I don't look forward to seeing the same group of profiles updated every week or so by someone "fixing" the way someone's name is credited.
I understand the linking problem. But if all the profiles in my local database call someone A/B/C and all yours call that same person A//BC -- one of us will lose the ability to link names. | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:
Quote:
I still haven't gotten any answer as to why people persist in making a big deal about how a name is parsed. WHO CARES? What's the big deal?
I'm just guessing here, but, I think the big deal is all about linking. Unless everyone agrees how to parse a given name, it will wind up being contributed in one profile as A/B/C per Skip's method, and as A/B C or A B/C per RHo's suspicions. Both of those profiles will not show up by clicking on either version.
Then we'll have another big battle over which version should be the "common name". It will be one way one day depending on which method was used most often, but could change the next day if the other method overtakes in the CLT. Which is why I think there should be some way to document any change that doesn't rely on "guessing" as you say. Quote:
Purely from a consistency standpoint, I support the word counting method unless it can be documented to be wrong. "Guessing" in my book is simply unacceptable because it relies on individual interpretations and personal experience as opposed to simple math; e.g. 1, 2, 3. I don't understand why there's problem with word counting. Are there really that many occasions where it's hard to determine parsing? | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
I don't understand why there's problem with word counting. Are there really that many occasions where it's hard to determine parsing? No, they are rare. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:
Quote:
I don't understand why there's problem with word counting. Are there really that many occasions where it's hard to determine parsing?
No, they are rare. then lets just word count. | | | | Paul |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 868 |
| | Posted: | | | | I've been reading all these pages and i woud like to say this.
In my opinion only one name field would be the best solution. In doing so the already available a/b/c or a/bc or ab/c will immideately be linked. (i think the CLT does this?) You would only have to worry about what's on screen. If the on screen data has B/ca for example you could just use the as credited option.
As for searching for an actor (i'm not really an computer expert), but for titles you have the substring search. i'm sure something like this can be done for actors to.
In my opinion this solution would prevent a lot of argueing.
Paul |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 404 |
| | Posted: | | | | I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You can keep all three fields and still not have to worry about parsing if Ken makes the program recognize that a/b/c = a//b c. If you can only have one name locally, then the way that you have it parsed will stay that way when you download another profile with the name parsed differently. If you don't have that name locally yet, and download it, well, it will be the starting point for your database, you can either leave it as is, or parse it to your own perference. | | | The Other DVD Forum
Why do people who know the least know it the loudest? |
|
| Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting paulb_99: Quote:
I've been reading all these pages and i woud like to say this.
In my opinion only one name field would be the best solution. In doing so the already available a/b/c or a/bc or ab/c will immideately be linked. (i think the CLT does this?) You would only have to worry about what's on screen. If the on screen data has B/ca for example you could just use the as credited option.
As for searching for an actor (i'm not really an computer expert), but for titles you have the substring search. i'm sure something like this can be done for actors to.
In my opinion this solution would prevent a lot of argueing.
Paul I think that 2 name fields would suffice: Given Name (whatever you call its parts: First Name, Middle Name, Double First Name...) and Family Name. | | | | -- Enry | | | | Last edited: by White Pongo, Jr. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 868 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting EnryWiki: Quote:
Quoting paulb_99:
Quote:
I've been reading all these pages and i woud like to say this.
In my opinion only one name field would be the best solution. In doing so the already available a/b/c or a/bc or ab/c will immideately be linked. (i think the CLT does this?) You would only have to worry about what's on screen. If the on screen data has B/ca for example you could just use the as credited option.
As for searching for an actor (i'm not really an computer expert), but for titles you have the substring search. i'm sure something like this can be done for actors to.
In my opinion this solution would prevent a lot of argueing.
Paul
I think that 2 name fields would suffice:
Given Name (whatever you call its parts: First Name, Middle Name, Double First Name...) and Family Name. I think this solution would still give some problems regarding Asian names (see some other threads http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=245991 for exmple). If there was just one nema field you could just enter what's on screen and use the CLT finding the most commonly used name by trying different orders. At least that's what ithink. Paul |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 5,734 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Staid S Barr: Quote:
One thing's for sure, the originator of this thread got exactly what he wanted: another endless argument.  Objection! Your statement does not rely on facts, you can only guess the originator's intention. But this thread would be shorter for sure without unobjective postings. | | | | Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played. [Ken Cole, DVD Profiler Architect] |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting EnryWiki: Quote:
Quoting paulb_99:
Quote:
I've been reading all these pages and i woud like to say this.
In my opinion only one name field would be the best solution. In doing so the already available a/b/c or a/bc or ab/c will immideately be linked. (i think the CLT does this?) You would only have to worry about what's on screen. If the on screen data has B/ca for example you could just use the as credited option.
As for searching for an actor (i'm not really an computer expert), but for titles you have the substring search. i'm sure something like this can be done for actors to.
In my opinion this solution would prevent a lot of argueing.
Paul
I think that 2 name fields would suffice:
Given Name (whatever you call its parts: First Name, Middle Name, Double First Name...) and Family Name. Absolutely NO Enry. That would completely violate the premise of the program and the rules to begin with and we wind up with data that looks like imdB AND NOT THE FILM CREDITS. Not only that Enry, if you THINK you KNOW exactly what a Family Name is I want to see Birth Certificate documentation because I know of many instances where i could easily prove YOUR assumption WRONG. If you don't want to argue you FIRST need to understand why the Rules do what they do and stopt trying to turn this into some variant of other databases that already do this garbage. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,029 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Quoting EnryWiki:
Quote:
I think that 2 name fields would suffice:
Given Name (whatever you call its parts: First Name, Middle Name, Double First Name...) and Family Name.
Absolutely NO Enry. That would completely violate the premise of the program and the rules to begin with... Ehm, how so? The whole 3 field concept can only be explained by looking at the development history of DVD Profiler. In the early days, it was not uncommon to distinguish between persons with the same name by moving name parts to different fields. Now we have the BY to distinguish them. For sorting and for the "Last, First Middle" display, 2 fields are sufficient. Of course, it wouldn't stop the arguments about where that pesky middle part of the name belongs. Sigh. Now I got myself dragged into this again. | | | | Matthias |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ahem: Mathias< IF you understand the development history of profiler, then you also know that we had NO rules and the whole Online database was a mess, with changes being made on a weekly basis based on nothing other than how a particular user wanted to manipulate the database to suit his particular preferences. Which was an unpalatable situiation for everybody. The Rules set up standards for specific reasons, and we had to go to to Rules, beccause even comments by Ken were not enough to stop the corruption.. But then... Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,029 |
| | Posted: | | | | That is not the point and I have no disagreement with you about it.
EnryWiki suggested to move from 3 name fields to 2 name fields. I agree that this would be sufficient, but I don't see it stopping any arguments about "middle names".
OTOH, you claimed that such a move would "completely violate the premise of the program and the rules to begin with". That is, in my view, a ridiculous statement. | | | | Matthias |
|