Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
First off, Ace. Both of the proposals are waaay beyond anything that IMDb odes, they do not really use As Credited data in any way in their crew data. So duplicating IMDb is not even in the cards, either proposal elevates Profiler to another level of accuracy and one in oparticular takes it to the ultimate level of not only accuracy, but if there are users who are interested in such data, insanity as well.

First, as Ace has already pointed out, IMDb does use as credited data.  Just as an example, for the first episode of Farscape, they have listed: line producer; special makeup effects artist; creature designer and prosthetic makeup artist; assistant unit manager; third assistant director; draughtsman; vehicle builder; assistant to producer & animatronic model designer.  I could go on, but I think I have made my point...not only do they use 'as credited'data in their crew chart, they track more catagories than we do.  So, no, the proposals are not "way beyond anything that IMDb does," they are exactly what IMDb does.

Quote:
I am not surprised at the sources of the negative remarks, I am however disappointed in the selfishness displayed and the willingness of people to deny data to those who might be interested. One user in particular surprised me by saying he has not seen anybody ever express interest, this same user likes to point out that very few users actually come to the Forums  so Rules changes and so forth cannot rely on the Forums and now he makes a claim which is 180 degrees in reverse from that. From my own viewpoint we definitely are not capturing enough data yet, as I have said before, I am not interested in Full credits myself, but if there is ANY user out there who is, I just don't have the right to tell him he can't , that is just a wrong attitude all the way around. I am not surprised at the attitude of the naysayers, but disappointed that they would actually believe that they have the right to say No. Particualrly since it would be entirely within the realm of possibility to leave everyone of us in complete control of what data we choose to accept or not. It is not only disappointing but shocking.

Sinc you seem to have a comprehension problem, I will explain.  It is true that we, the forum users, probably make up less than 10% of the user community.  It is also true that the people who participate in the forums are not your average user.  We contribute more, and want more out of the program than the average user does.  Because of that, the odds are fairly high that anyone, who would want to enter full crew data, would be here making that request.

As I said before, doing a complete overhaul of the program, to satisfy a user that might exist, doesn't make any sense to me.  Call it selfish if you want, I call it being practical.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Sorry re-reading this thread I just saw this post.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Well you all know my preference.

I actually don't. I searched through some of your prior posts, but I'm still not clear on what Pete's suggestion is.

I do not want all crew credits. If Ken wants to add some more crew it is up to him... but I am fine with what we have now. I do want a credited as type thing for Roles. This way we have it in profiler just like we do for cast and crew names. what you quoted below is how I want it.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:

Quote:
Category - brings up choices (as it does now) Click on Choice (Director) - Opens Text Field (Type in Co-Director) And all this be contributable so we sorta have a credited as for Crew Jobs as we do names. And yet when you filter on Directors it gets it from the job list under each category. So it will bring up Directors you get results of Directors and Co-Directors (if we decided on all crew per section that is).

With the exception of contributing the custom roles, we already have the capability you describe.

Then it should be easy to implement.. including the filtering to work off the provided role name I take it? I know I for one would be more inclined to do crew if we went with an as credited crew role... instead of having to attempt to decipher the crew chart.

We already have something similar to what you are describing...the custom role field.  If Ken were to make that field contributable, which I believe would be far easier to do than redesigning the entire crew section, most of us would be happy.  It would have the added benefit of letting the voters, and screeners, see the actual credit being entered.

Martain:

I agree that Custom Roles should be Contributable for the reasons you describe, I also agree with pete that at the very least we should see Expanded Credits. Wjhat you have bot bothered to explain to me is this, let's assume that somebody requested Full credits, now ignoring the fact that the Rules do not currently allow for this (you and I would both say No at this time), explain to me how you could possibly justify setting yourself up as a roadblock to that user and say No to ADDITIONAL data, especially if it was set up as I described, which would harm no one (assuming we could iron out the problems which would exist relative to links and so forth), by what right can you say NO. You can express an opinion, but i simply don't see that you have a right to say no to a user simply based on your own preference. I have acknowledged that my preference is that I will not be doing full credits, but I also don't believe that Rules aside and program aside, I would have any right to say NO based upon my preference. For one thing assuming that issues could be resolved, which would only mean additional data, over which i have complete control locally as I described, then I have no rational reason to say NO you can't have what you want because I don't want it. That is just a bizzare statement to make, and would only seem to me designed to drive people away. So could you please explain given what i have described how you could possibly tell such a user No you can't have that because you don't want it. There are lots of Features in the program that I don't want and don't use, but that does not mean those features should be removed because i don't want them. it's wrong-headed, amigo. I could not say that, and i am confused as to how you think it would be right for you to do so. The reason I call it selfish, is because essentially your argument is No because I don't want it.

I laid both Pete's proposal and mine and explained it great detail how they both could work. The purpose being to create a discussion that eliminates the "I don't want it" concept because I find that to be one of the most offensive defenses that there is. And yet that is the only defense offered thus far. There are issues if either approach were to be used like replacing the BY system with something (that's been a problem for awhile now) and any other issues.  Also as I have noted even with Pete's expanded Credits, we have issues to resolve and deal with or weill continue have silly discussiions consisting of way too much back and forth...and hard feelings. Perhaps that is entertainment for you, it is not for me and i am looking for ways to end it ourselves, I don't want Ken's involvement ion every little thing, I want him spending his time developing the Program, the IPhone/Ipod applicatiion and new Online goodies.

You have now become a fan of IMDb? They have apklce to besure, but if you believe they are that good accuracy wise, and I have seen little indication that they are then why aren't using them instead of Profiler. Iknow that after we developed our Rules and they came under fire for accuracy they did indeed change to As Credited, but i see many titles (bew ones0 that their users appear to be ignoring those credits. But I simply believe that if ANY user wants to be able to list ALL credits then he should be allowed and he should be allowed to Contribute that data, and it is for as updaters to make the individual choice of what we want to accept. I see it as a win win, we encourage user paerticipation by allowing them to contribute and we setup the system so that theupdaters can accept whatever portion of a Crew dataset they wish.

Under expanded credits I would add Set decoration (Awards Category) , I would separate the Art department Effects into their base component categories, I would Add Sound Effects, I would also add titles to Art because of some of the lgendary people in the field like Maurice Binder. I THINK I agree with Pete that we should not limit what goes into the categories. I still don't know how i feel about 2nd/Location Crew. Nor do I know how i feel about Non-Original Music prformances, though i do think that we should allow for Original Song performances. The other thing that I think needs to be allowed under expanded credits is Company Names (Typically this seems to come into play in Effects) to give context to the credits that follow. As I said I could live with expanded credits as done properly it would take us to 90% and that's good enough, I think...but if someone wanted Full Crew data I still don't see how I could say NO, even though I am personally not interested, I think we would be obliged to find a way.

Skip

I don't feel this is a useful discussion. Fix the linking and then we can talk about everything else...

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
James:

Have you missed what I have said. IF there is such a user we don't have the right to say NO. So what do we do, we look at what the issues are and see if we can come up with a solution. The link system as it si right now is near worthless anyway. So, how can we fix it, even without Full credits. Now I think you already know why I think it is broken and how i would go about fixing it. The link system as it exists will never be able to function very well, it will always be running on crutches. So, like I said already, even with expanded credits or no change, it's a problem, that has to be fixed. The CLT does nothing from an Online point of view, or should do nothing, it should merely be a wayfor us to share data and the best answer for that remains simple association.

Skip

It's not our program, so we don't really have rights to anything. But I have a right to say I don't want something that someone else wants. Very simply. If I don't have that right, what's the purpose in any feature request? We should just accept them all because someone wants it? I don't think so.

Full open credits will break linking. "Simple association" has never successfully explained how it could do a better job of separating same-names than what we have. It's not yet the answer.

I can come up with any number of features a hypothetical user might want. I would like run-times tracked to the second, for instance. I would also like just as much info on the making-of dcs as we have on feature films. At the very least, that's one person who wants these features. Somebody else might want to track bitrates, the weight of retail packages or the number of times the word "happy funtime" is used in movies (which is not in IMDB in any searchable fashion).

If people don't want these implemented, it's because either they realize resources are limited and want them spent developing more useful features or because they thing the program has a defined purpose and features that don't serve this purpose are dead weight and clutter. These reasons amount to the same thing. If you want to call thinking features I (and possibly other users) want are more important than features some unknown user might hypothetically want selfishness, go right ahead, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. What do you call it when you argue against the program tracking CDs, video games and such? I think the same principle applies.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Hmmm:

I just thought of a challenge for thoe who favor the Unique identifier for names. The last time I checked there were, for example 40 odd different John Williams (for example), so if we are building a Profile that has a credit for John Williams how are we going to be able to communicate to Invelos which NameID should be used OR that a newone needs to be assigned.

Hmmmmmm.

Skip

Bingo! That is indeed the problem with open credits at this time.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Martain:

I agree that Custom Roles should be Contributable for the reasons you describe, I also agree with pete that at the very least we should see Expanded Credits. Wjhat you have bot bothered to explain to me is this, let's assume that somebody requested Full credits, now ignoring the fact that the Rules do not currently allow for this (you and I would both say No at this time), explain to me how you could possibly justify setting yourself up as a roadblock to that user and say No to ADDITIONAL data, especially if it was set up as I described, which would harm no one (assuming we could iron out the problems which would exist relative to links and so forth), by what right can you say NO. You can express an opinion, but i simply don't see that you have a right to say no to a user simply based on your own preference. I have acknowledged that my preference is that I will not be doing full credits, but I also don't believe that Rules aside and program aside, I would have any right to say NO based upon my preference. For one thing assuming that issues could be resolved, which would only mean additional data, over which i have complete control locally as I described, then I have no rational reason to say NO you can't have what you want because I don't want it. That is just a bizzare statement to make, and would only seem to me designed to drive people away. So could you please explain given what i have described how you could possibly tell such a user No you can't have that because you don't want it. There are lots of Features in the program that I don't want and don't use, but that does not mean those features should be removed because i don't want them. it's wrong-headed, amigo. I could not say that, and i am confused as to how you think it would be right for you to do so. The reason I call it selfish, is because essentially your argument is No because I don't want it.

I have the same right as any user to express my opinion.  I have seen you, on more than one occasion, over in the feature request forum, tell users that you do not like their requested feature.  Why are you allowed to express your opinion there, but I am not allowed to express mine here?  This is a discussion forum, in order for there to be discussion, you have to allow for opinions that do not coincide with yours.  If you don't, then you aren't looking for a discussion.  Beyond that, I do not deal with hypotheticals.  If someone comes in here and asks for this ability, then we can discuss it.  I see no point in having a discussion about something that nobody has requested.

Quote:
I don't want Ken's involvement ion every little thing, I want him spending his time developing the Program, the IPhone/Ipod applicatiion and new Online goodies.

What say you let Ken decide what is important enough for him to be involved in.  It is his program after all.  I do, however, find it rather odd that you don't want him to waste his time here yet you want him to waste it rebuilding the crew database for users who may not exist. 

I deleted the rest because you are starting to repeat yourslef.  First, I have always been a fan of IMDb.  They, just like Profiler, have a purpose and I use them for that purpose.  As for our what we are obliged to do, we are obliged to do nothing.  If we want to contribute, we have to follow the rules.  If we want to participate in the forums, assuming the mods are watching, we have to follow the rules.  If someone comes along and asks for a feature, we have the ability to give our opinions, but we are not obliged to find a way to give them what they want...mainly because we do not have that ability.

It is Ken who has that ability.  He will decide if what they want is important enough to add to the program and, if he does, then it is up to him to find a way.