| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Because of all the problems with name parsing etc. I suggest that all the name fields be merged into one field and a separate "sort name" field be created to deal with how the names are sorted in the lists (for those that want it).
In order to avoid ping-ponging, I suggest the sort name field, after the initial creation, be local only - just like the title sort field.
So, as an example:
Name: John Wayne
Sort Name: Wayne, John
Name: Chow Yun Fat
Sort Name: Chow, Yun Fat
Name: Helena Bonham Carter
Sort Name: Bonham Carter, Helena
This would solve all middle name and asian name issues in one fell swoop. And there would be no more arguing about double barrelled last names as everyone who has a problem with a sort name can fix it locally with no need to have to resubmit all affected profiles. |
|
| Registered: March 26, 2007 | | Posts: 196 |
| | Posted: | | | | Having the sort name be local only after initial creation might be problematic (because the person doing the contribution may easily have it wrong), but otherwise I agree with this proposal. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | That's very true - however all you need to do is fix it once in your own database, and it would automatically affect all profiles which contain it (such as the BY does). It also means you wouldn't have to submit all the profiles affected and end up with half being accepted and half being declined, making a right mess of the database.
I honestly don't think it would be a huge problem. For example, nearly all the James Bond profiles I have had a sort title of "James Bond 01", "James Bond 02" etc. Very different from what it should be! However, it didn't take me long to fix them, and as it's local only I didn't have to submit them all and justify my change in contribution notes. |
|
| Registered: April 4, 2007 | | Posts: 7 |
| | Posted: | | | | And how much time for each user to fill 30000 sort name fields ?
I do not see at present any problem . |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting prune99: Quote:
And how much time for each user to fill 30000 sort name fields ?
I do not see at present any problem . Each user wouldn't have to do that. I would imagine Ken, if he took this idea up, would simply merge the data in two ways: Name: first+middle+last Sort Name: last, first+middle This would do pretty much all the work for everyone anyway, and any problems would be caused by incorrectly parsed names that should have been corrected in the first place. The only thing that wouldn't get caught are the asian names, but they're in a right mess at the minute anyway. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm against this idea. I see it as doubling the amount of work people will have to do to enter names for new profiles in their local databases: once for the singlenamefield and once for the sortnamefield. From my selfish perspective, there aren't enough "troublesome" names to warrant all the additional work that would be required to maintain the cast/crew list data.
That's just my preference, but it seems to me like the people who are in favor of a single name field are only thinking about THEIR preference, so whose is more important? | | | 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: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | NOEver try to sort a cast list report based on a single name field? Try it some time...it's a hoot  . | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ken,
it would reduce the amount of work needed, as instead of having to fill in three fields, you only have to fill in two.
And maybe Ken Cole could add a button, like in my music collection software, that takes what you type into the name field, splits it at the last space then swaps the two parts round - that would create the bulk of the sort names there and then.
And I can't think what this "additional work" would be? The database would require less maintenance as there would be less fields to worry about.
and Max,
the sort name field would do that for you - that's what it would be for. | | | | Last edited: by northbloke |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Ken,
it would reduce the amount of work needed, as instead of having to fill in three fields, you only have to fill in two.
And maybe Ken Cole could add a button, like in my music collection software, that takes what you type into the name field, splits it at the last space then swaps the two parts round - that would create the bulk of the sort names there and then.
And I can't think what this "additional work" would be? The database would require less maintenance as there would be less fields to worry about.
and Max,
the sort name field would do that for you - that's what it would be for. How is a sort field going to work? What would you base the sort on? Unless the "Sort Field" consists of mutiple fields, it won't work. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,242 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
Ken,
it would reduce the amount of work needed, as instead of having to fill in three fields, you only have to fill in two.
And maybe Ken Cole could add a button, like in my music collection software, that takes what you type into the name field, splits it at the last space then swaps the two parts round - that would create the bulk of the sort names there and then.
And I can't think what this "additional work" would be? The database would require less maintenance as there would be less fields to worry about.
and Max,
the sort name field would do that for you - that's what it would be for.
How is a sort field going to work? What would you base the sort on? Unless the "Sort Field" consists of mutiple fields, it won't work. It would still come down to the Parsing, would it not  Steve |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | The name sort field would work exactly the same way as the title sort field works. Is there anything else you need it to do?
And yes Snarbo, it would come down to parsing, but this way that parsing would be completely up to you - you could have it set up any way you like! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,242 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
The name sort field would work exactly the same way as the title sort field works. Is there anything else you need it to do?
And yes Snarbo, it would come down to parsing, but this way that parsing would be completely up to you - you could have it set up any way you like! That's all right until somebody decides it's H/B/C instead of H//BC Steve |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting snarbo: Quote:
That's all right until somebody decides it's H/B/C instead of H//BC
Steve No, that's the point - if someone decides H//BC should be H/B/C they can change it in their database and it won't affect anyone elses! No more ping-ponging of profiles or daft discussions in the forums about Zsa Zsa Gabor! And conversely, if you download a profile where someone has created an actor parsed as H/B/C (assuming this actor doesn't already exist in your database) all you need to do is change the sort name to reflect H//BC and your entire database is fixed - any subsequent profiles you download would link to the same actor with the same sorting. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 3,830 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't think this will help the program speed with one big name field, specialy for the large collection users. Now the program is fast on searches, we just all have to follow the rules. And even with one field the problems want go away. Li Gong <> Gong Li, José <> Jose. Entering cast & crew, the automated search parameters, ... and a lot of other problems the programmer has to deal with. It works fine now. | | | | Sources for one or more of the changes and/or additions were not submitted. Please include the sources for your changes in the contribution notes, especially for cast and crew additions. | | | | Last edited: by ? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
The name sort field would work exactly the same way as the title sort field works. Is there anything else you need it to do?
And yes Snarbo, it would come down to parsing, but this way that parsing would be completely up to you - you could have it set up any way you like! Really? The sort field, consisting of a single field, can sort by last name? | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
The name sort field would work exactly the same way as the title sort field works. Is there anything else you need it to do?
And yes Snarbo, it would come down to parsing, but this way that parsing would be completely up to you - you could have it set up any way you like!
Really? The sort field, consisting of a single field, can sort by last name? Yes, look at the examples I gave - the sort field for John Wayne would contain "Wayne, John" thus sorting him with the Ws, not the Js. |
|