Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:

While I will agree that it is a marketing gimmick, I don't believe any of my unrated versions is the same as the rated version.

I can't know that of course. I have less than a dozen "Unrated" in my collection, and in most cases that appears to be the only release out there. And several actually have "R" or other ratings (and details) on the back, in spite of "Unrated" being prominently plastered over the front.

Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:
It just makes no sense to make a personal preference a forced features for all the users.

I don't get it.  To take a real life example, I don't care for how the titles are entered on the Disney Treasures sets.  So I have Mickey Mouse in Black and White rather than Mickey Mouse in Black and White: The Classic Collection: Walt Disney Treasures and The Chronological Donald: Volume Three rather than The Chronological Donald: Volume Three: 1947-1950: Walt Disney Treasures.

Those titles may be correct according to the rules, but I don't like them.  So I've set the titles how I want and then locked them.  Those changes aren't forced on me because of the locking feature found in the program.  And if I didn't have them locked, I could always use the partial acceptance feature, found in the program, to accept all the changes in an update except for the title.

Furthermore, because of the way Ken has setup the online version of my collection, my preferences are also respected in my online collection.  Visitors will see the titles as I want them, rather than as found in the primary database.  I would suspect that ratings will behave similarly.

Rating is another field that can be locked.  It can also be ignored during an update.  I honestly don't see how anything is being forced upon anyone.  If you don't like unrated, don't use it.  If some slip through, you can filter on Unrated and use the copy / paste feature to set them back in seconds.

And if you're one of those who don't care about this change, yet still feel compelled to dig deep on every submission that crosses your path, that's a task you've choosen to take on.  The rest of us shouldn't be denied improvements to the software we paid for because a few people with extremely large collections have OCD issues (not picking on anyone here since I freely admit I have my own OCD issues )  I realize that may make life difficult for people like Skip.  And that's unfortunate.  But that's also the price of progress.  And those individuals don't have to check each and every contribution.  Doing so is a choice, not a requirement.

I do the same type  of thing with my cast lists, Mark.  I don't like my cast in Alphabetical Order or Order of Appearance.  I prefer the main actors to be at the top of the list.  So when they aren't in that order in the standard credits, I add a divider and add the main cast...from the opening credits...above the standard cast list.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
...
If you need to differentiate between titles that have not been rated, in order to determine family friendliness or whatever, then the rating field is not the place to do it. Shoehorning in unrelated data into the rating field will only cause confusion

Considering what the entire point of a film rating is, this might be the quote of the year for me! 

I don't know who originally said it, but thanks, I needed that.

Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:
To answer one of your comment there is an impact for those who don't want this : we can't download the database update who force the change in DVDP...

Buh. Why not? Downloading that update won't cause a change to your existing profiles. As long as you lock your profiles, you won't notice this change.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Time must still be expended to evaluate the Contribution

Only if you care about using the Unrated rating. And if you do, I don't see the big deal in spending the time. That's what we do around here. Spend time improving our databases.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
It is also not too late for Ken to make this call, instead of wasting users time and energy.

I don't see improving the database as a waste of time.

Anyway, I have no intention getting sucked into a back-and-forth about this. I have more productive things to do than arguing about a non-issue that is so simple to side-step, so don't expect any further replies on this topic.

I'll just leave you with this:

Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
I now hate Canada.

Don't make me come over there!

Let's not forget either that in all the hubbub over this Ken has never once provided any support to his claim relative to confusion over NR or Unrated, not once. Prior to a couple of weeks ago it had NEVER appeared in the Forums as an issue...not one tiime. Yet this was a big deal and had to be addressed at once...Forgive me i am skeptical. This sounds like an issue that was raised to ken by one user, perhaps a couple more, certainly not a lot of them or we would have seen it here in the Forums. So, call me cynical. but he has dealt with that aspect, but now I and others have to deal with the price that must be paid by us for yet another hare brained decision. Do I like it, absolutely, I have put enough time into this program, to have even more time required by stupid decisions.

If this was the big deal that ken has led us to believe it was, then he should have told those interested to take it to the Forums,instead of skulking around inn the shadows and dumping it here onlty after a decision had clearly already been reached. Two hundred hours (over 3 weeks) is a lot of time, anyone who needs ratings to determine their suitability probably should not be watching a given film to begin with, as I have said, I don't need them at all, they are only data of little import, and in those rare instances where I might be unfamiliar with the "suitability" then I will err on the side of caution.

Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I thought we had to complain, constantly, every time there was a change we didn't like. 

Quite a cheap shot from a four stars member... I've never said that I'm against the change or doesn't like it, I don't like how it was incorporated (not really the same thing).

What do my stars have to do with anything?  I, as well as many other users, get tired of having the same dead horses beat over and over and over again.  While you may not like the sentiment, it was not a cheap shot.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:

What do my stars have to do with anything?

For me a user who had a lot of stars is supposed to be a reasonable person and not the kind of person who use unwaranted cheap shot... Guess I was wrong

Quote:

I, as well as many other users, get tired of having the same dead horses beat over and over and over again.

The "actual" solution is only a temporary one as Ken had said, so if I STFU it will means for him that everybody agree with the inclusion of personal preference in the database. I don't agree and the last time I've checked it was always permitted to be against a good concept badly implemented.

Do you notice that I've written that it's a good idea like I've always said but this part tend to be forgotten...