| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 20,111 |
| | Posted: | | | | There has been heated discussion recently in the Alternate Disc IDs for Child Profiles thread. Ken officially ruled here that he doesn't see a problem with these being added...unless the actual disc content is different or altered. But some users in the thread have disagreed with this official ruling. Ken has suggested starting a poll for an overall opinion here, and I think that is a very good idea. This poll is simply an attempt to gauge the opinion of users here. Basically, the issue at hand is whether a profile which is entered in the database under it's Disc ID (not under a UPC) should be allowed to have an "alternate Disc ID" added into such a profile, since it was originally added into the database as a unique Disc ID. If you need more information, please see the above links to the original thread discussion. So what say you, yea or nay?  | | | | Corey |
|
| Registered: March 10, 2007 | | Posts: 4,282 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't have a yea or nay for you Kat, but I do have a 'kudos on a brief and fair restatement of the question' | | | | Invelos Software, Inc. Representative |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | I can see the arguments for not creating new profiles. That leads to TV seasons having two of each disc llisted in the online DB. However, fixing if by listing a disc ID for a profile that doesn't match that disc ID is a fatally flawed solution because people aren't going to find that a similar discs already exists and will submit these anyway. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | Let's think about the contribution process in general, when updating an existing profile. What do you do first? You check that the changes and/or additions are targeted to a correct profile, right? This is so obvious that I admit, you can't even find it from the rules. So how do you check that you're contributing to a correct profile? You check that the UPC + Locality of your contribution matches. Same goes with Disc ID. The combination of Disc ID + Locality should match. No need to treat them differently, since both pairs work as a primary key for the db.
Therefore I see that this whole conversation is a moot as you shouldn't even start updating an existing profile if primary key doesn't match. |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Agreed with above. If I'm starting a profile for an disc ID, I would check to see if a profile for that disc ID already existed. Otherwise I'd have to try to find it by name, then go about determining if the contents are identical to the disc with the existing profile. Since a lot of the contents aren't cataloged in much detail, there's no good way to do this. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ace_of_Sevens: Quote:
I can see the arguments for not creating new profiles. That leads to TV seasons having two of each disc llisted in the online DB. This was noted before. Therefore I placed a Feature Request a long time ago. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm sure everyone knows how I voted.  |
|
| Registered: June 6, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 950 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian from the thread (now closed) that started it all: Quote:
Simply put, the UPC represents the case, and we list the different disc IDs that go into that case. The disc ID, however, represents the actual disc. No other discs can go into that disc. I agree. Allowing another Disc IDs in a profile identified by its DiscID defies logic. To use an analogy for UPC and DiscID taken from biology, it would be like adding a different species (say jaguar, leopard or tiger) of a given genus (in this example Panthera) to the binomial Panthera leo. A tiger is not a lion. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | The main thing that worries me is not to have multiple disc IDs associated with the same profile. This is tolerable, as long as the discs are identical for everything else that we track in Profiler. But to my knowledge there exists currently no way (for a user anyway) to remove an incorrect disc ID once it has been submitted and accepted into the database. In fact all disc IDs except the last one contributed are hidden from the users. Once it's in the system, it seems to be stuck there forever. If there was an easy process to firstly: see all contributed IDs *within* the profile, secondly: to remove any one of them and contribute the change, then I would *maybe* vote yes (although I would still much prefer individual profiles for every unique disc ID). But as things appear to me now: No! | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: September 18, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,650 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
I'm sure everyone knows how I voted. I agree with you and voted likewise. |
|
| Registered: October 30, 2011 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 1,870 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting samuelrichardscott: Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:
Quote:
I'm sure everyone knows how I voted.
I agree with you and voted likewise. Same here |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | So far I like where this poll is going  |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 762 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kulju: Quote:
So far I like where this poll is going Me too. |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting KinoNiki: Quote:
The main thing that worries me is not to have multiple disc IDs associated with the same profile. This is tolerable, as long as the discs are identical for everything else that we track in Profiler. But to my knowledge there exists currently no way (for a user anyway) to remove an incorrect disc ID once it has been submitted and accepted into the database. In fact all disc IDs except the last one contributed are hidden from the users. Once it's in the system, it seems to be stuck there forever. If there was an easy process to firstly: see all contributed IDs *within* the profile, secondly: to remove any one of them and contribute the change, then I would *maybe* vote yes (although I would still much prefer individual profiles for every unique disc ID). But as things appear to me now: No! Agree 100%. Adding a alt. disc id to an existing UPC as we do now doesn't guarantee that the contents are the same, just the package UPC is. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 20,111 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think maybe the voting has probably almost run its course now. But feel free to keep on voting those who haven't!
The main thread discussion has since been locked, so it's up to Ken to decide whether his previous ruling remains in effect or is rescinded... | | | | Corey | | | | Last edited: by Katatonia |
|
| Registered: June 21, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,621 |
| | Posted: | | | | More not-quite duplicate profiles of exact titles will only end up skewing the CLT results even more, if the content is the same, link em!  I'd also like to see alternate UPC's which share the same disc ID(s) be linked to clear up database even more. I see I'm in the minority, but I'm used to that. |
|