 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 5 6 7 8 9 ...12  Previous Next
|
 Stephen King's "It" (Locked) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 810 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
I have explained that as well, it is based upon ACCURACY which was determined by others in other circumstances. The ACCURATE title is the title that is legally registered with US Copyright Office or similar entity in other countries, if there is such a thing. Had the SRP issue not arisen, I would still be complaining about the IF THEN (which makes me absolutely nuts) but the accuracy question would not be part of the discussion. But to say that we want the SRP to be ACCURATE, while the single most important piece of does not have to accurate and we are willing to accept COMPROMISES is simply illogical.
Skip This is not about the "title that is legally registered with US Copyright Office", this is about the title that is printed on the case that the DVD comes in. The title on the case is the one that you use when you buy the DVD. If the on-screen title is not the same we have the original title field. There are many DVD cases that list the name of the director next to/above the film title, but in most cases the directors name is not part of the title of the film. We now have some simple rules to guide us in entering the title. Most of us are finding it quite easy to follow these rules, why is it so hard for you? pdf | | | Paul Francis
San Juan Capistrano, CA, USA |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Paul:
Why is it so hard for you to understand ACCURACY, I did not raise the issue. but if the title field, arguably the most important single piece of data, does not have to be ACCURATE, then why does the SRP field have to be accurate despite the fact the Rule says DO NOT. Consistency...one way or the other.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Skip,
Let me make one thing clear: like you, I am also always looking for accuracy. And yes, I agree with you that the new rules on titles are not exactly ideal. Personally, I have always used the very simple rule: take the "title" from the front cover, and the "original title" from the film's credits. I've used this standard for years now, and I continue to do so after the rule change. Only in a few cases this leads to problems, in which cases I'll just have to keep my titles local. But that way, I feel I'm storing all title-data I'm looking for: I want to track the title from the cover, as that's what I actually see on the shelve, and I want to track the actual film title as it appears on-screen. I don't care about "credit blocks", the U.S. copyright office, or anything else.
Having said that, this is just my personal preference. I'd have preferred Ken to put my method into the rules - it would have made for a lot less arguing, let me tell you - but he didn't. I think that's a shame, but hey: so be it. The rules are as they are, and we should all stick to them. You can argue endlessly over accuracy, compare it to the SRP issue etc., but it doesn't matter. You're absolutely right: the current rules on titles will result in quite a number of inconsistencies. That's too bad, but not such a huge problem as these endless pages of bickering would lead you to believe. You need to realize that your stance on this is just a personal preference, like everyone else's. While you may feel yours is the right one (just as I consider my method the ideal one), it still is just your personal preference, and Ken has chosen another way. So yes, the rules are not ideal. But we're all free to do whatever we want in our local database. For online purposes however, we should all just follow the rules. You're even perfectly welcome to start a thread/poll/whatever to try and convince Ken to change the rules. But it's wrong to use your vote to express your dissatisfaction with the rules. For online purposes, we should all follow the rules as they are, not as we think they should be. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 742 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Bob:
And the Rules said DO NOT change the SRP but that didn't stop anybody from violating the Rules now did it.
Skip So, in a nutshell, you're taking the position that once a specific rule gets broken, all rules are null and void and deterring from them as a whole is the justified course of action? Sorry Skip, but as you should know: "Two wrongs do not make a right". Just because a submission that's not according to the rules (regardless of the majority vote of the user or forum base) gets into the online db does not constitute the end of the rules as a whole. Even if others continouosly break the rules, that does not make it right for you to do so as well. Your efforts are doing nothing but to undermine your reputation regarding the correctness of your future submissions, as an admitted anti-rule behavior raises justified scrutiny, causing more work for those voting on your profiles and ultimately leading to no votes because of lack of trust in the provided documentation. We've been there and done that before. You are not here to educate the other users about how to contribute what under which interpretation of the rules. That job lies with the screeners who complete this task by casting the final vote on any submission. You can raise your concerns, voice your opinion in the forums, suggest changes to the rules and that's it. What you seem to fail to understand are the limits of your influence (and that of every other user as well) on these proceedings. I'm pretty sure you KNOW that the way you use the possessive rule at the moment is debatable at best (and frankly, it's plain wrong) but it seems to me you're doing this because you witnessed (among other things) a breach of the rules regarding SRP, voiced your opinion, referred to the rules, and got voted down by the majority and saw the contribution accepted. While I agree that the current rules DO forbid such contributions, the final decision lies with Ken and Gerri. Since both of them seem to frequent these forums regularly, I assume they're well aware of the discussions (quarrels) taking place. Your claim to change your game plan because of the beahvior of others does not jsutify nor rectify your actions at all. What you're doing now is wrong, and you know it. Just because someone else did something similar wrong in the past does not give you the right to do so as well, as much as you might want to. | | | | Lutz |
| | Registered: July 15, 2007 |  Posts: 159 |
| | | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,681 |
| | | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,681 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Why is it so hard for you to understand ACCURACY, I did not raise the issue. but if the title field, arguably the most important single piece of data, does not have to be ACCURATE, then why does the SRP field have to be accurate despite the fact the Rule says DO NOT. Consistency...one way or the other. Skip, Let me point out just another inconsistency in your comparison of SRP and Title. The SRP cannot be derived from looking at the DVD. It requires an outside source. Thus the rules cannot impose a definition of SRP that is independent of outside sources. The title, however, can be defined in the rules. The definition is independent of any outside sources. What is "correct" by the Copyright Office is not necessarily correct by the rules. It is similar to the "As Credited" rule. In the end credits of "Eugenie", Marie Liljedahl is credited as playing "Eugene". This is obviously not correct, but the rules specify that it is entered as credited. So, in the case of the title, what is correct is not defined by the US Copyright Office, it is defined by the rules. And the rules are clear about possessives - when there is a credit block with a title in quotes, that IS the title as far as DVD Profiler is concerned. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar | | | | Last edited: by GSyren |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dvdjon: Quote:
Dude imdb is the worlds lagest database for evrything film. the only thing i find HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE is the trivia/goofs/minibio section(as it is possible for the users to add info here) and the voting on some very fan based films. However i do recoginize that they do get some information wrong, much like an user here on invelos who says the title is "it!" as an example.
..
..
PLease don't muddy the water.. if that is possible. IMDB cannot be used since their database is copyrighted to them and if we went to that 3rd party database then we would need to pay royalties. | | | | Paul |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pauls42: Quote:
Quoting Dvdjon:
Quote:
Dude imdb is the worlds lagest database for evrything film. the only thing i find HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE is the trivia/goofs/minibio section(as it is possible for the users to add info here) and the voting on some very fan based films. However i do recoginize that they do get some information wrong, much like an user here on invelos who says the title is "it!" as an example.
..
..
PLease don't muddy the water.. if that is possible.
IMDB cannot be used since their database is copyrighted to them and if we went to that 3rd party database then we would need to pay royalties. Not to mention... they are far from accurate... especially in cast/crew (most especially role names).... something I noticed big time while doing cast lists from the actual credits. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 844 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Bob:
And the Rules said DO NOT change the SRP but that didn't stop anybody from violating the Rules now did it.
Skip I don't know what you are on about, SRP has nothing to do with the title. And for the record I have NEVER seen an srp change to a profile changing it by only a few cents. | | | | Last edited: by bob9000 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
OK let's look at some blatant and outright HYPOCRISY displayed by many here. Why do I say many...because many of you participated in the DO NOT issue. The Rule is clear, but it was twisted and spun to allow for a 4 cent change in SRP, despite the prohibition under the guise of....ACCURACY after all the user had ontained THE SRP from the Distributor. So we MUST have an ACCURATE SRP but NOT an ACCURATE title....sorry peopple it doesn't washand it is hypocritical to pretend otherwise.
Skip  Try to stay on topic, Skip! | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Paul:
Why is it so hard for you to understand ACCURACY, I did not raise the issue. but if the title field, arguably the most important single piece of data, does not have to be ACCURATE, then why does the SRP field have to be accurate despite the fact the Rule says DO NOT. Consistency...one way or the other.
Skip And where is the definitive ACCURATE source for non-U.S. film titles? Once again, Ken has clearly stated in the Rules that he is not interested in your definition of accuracy. He wants the title taken from the front cover. If it includes a possessive, take it from the credit block. You make it out to be some complex process. It's not. Any two-year-old can follow those instructions. Just follow the Rules and quit acting like a baby just because Ken did not write the Rule the way that you argued so arduously for! Get over it! | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: July 15, 2007 | | Posts: 159 |
| | | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Absolutely hilarious. Skip, the guy who defends typos in credits, because we must follow the rules, now wants to ignore the rules to favor accuracy in film titles (when Ken has let us know that this is DVD Profiler, not film profiler).  Bwahahahahahaha!  | | | If it wasn't for bad taste, I wouldn't have no taste at all.
Cliff |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dvdjon: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
LOL, for a title lookup the US Copyright Office is the ultimate authority relative to how any title has been coyrighted by those that hold said rights. We are also allowed to use even IMDb as a REFERENCE source, we cannot copy from another website and IMDb as a reference source is highly questionable on its own.
Skip
Dude imdb is the worlds lagest database for evrything film. the only thing i find HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE is the trivia/goofs/minibio section(as it is possible for the users to add info here) and the voting on some very fan based films. However i do recoginize that they do get some information wrong, much like an user here on invelos who says the title is "it!" as an example. To generally question the accuracy of imdb on a general basis is just wrong. its like saying that a brand new enzyclopedia is a source of wrong information. Most of the information on imdb is correct and some times they get it wrong. And one thing more imdb has atleast recognized that the movie title is just that. if we take "it" as an example it is called "it" not "it!" or "stephen king's it". Just think about it they understand that most people would search for "it" not "stephen king's. If one serches for all works of a writer, director or actor you do a search for their names. If it is really important to sort movies by the fact that they are directed by John carpenter you simply put john carpenter's in front of the title in the sorting title field. the best example would be james bond movies. i have added james bond 001 -james bond 021 on the movies just to hold them in order but the names in the base is still just dr.no, from russia with love, goldfinger and so on. this way I stay happy with the movies in perfect order and the other users here are happy because i did not change all 21 movies to "james bond 007: the world is not enough". all happy all ok. why even argue? the movie title in the movie in question here is clearly "it" and all movies with directors or writers name in front is clearly called just the anme of the movie. examples are John carpenter's christine or stephen king's it the real names of the movies are "christine" and "it". Dude: IMDb is also theworld's largest piece of totally inaccurate crap that there is. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 5 6 7 8 9 ...12 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |