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->Posts by Magmadrag Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6  Previous   Next
Message Details
I'll take a look at it at least to find out how many profiles are to handle.... might be a shock 
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 4855
During the last couple of years it was established that if I upload a profile with anyone with just "Jr." (without comma) was automatically corrected and I got back an update with ", Jr." credited as "Jr."

My problem now is the countless profiles from the time before this was installed!

Reason: Actually I am replacing existing ("wrong") child profiles with Alt. Versions to keep cover, case, release date (and sometimes other details) of the parent and avoid getting cover-updates again and again which are not relevant for me.

So before creating the Alt. Version, I check if there is any update for the profile to have the new one up to date. If there is one, I run it, if not, the Alt. Version gets it's initial contribution.

But as a lot of them are from before that installation, I get countless updates with ", Jr." credited as "Jr.".
I am sure that there is nobody around who could run any tool over the whole database to replace all the ones without comma at once and add the no-comma-version as "credited as".

And as everybody has thousands of cast- & crew-members in his collection, it would be a hard job to find all the ones without a comma.

So could anybody develop a tool (if there is not existing one yet?) just to filter all cast/crew without a comma? I've been working with other databases, but the * doesn't work on profiler (I tried to find actors by filter "*Jr." but had no results).

Here are some very good guys developing tools, so could anybody handle this (if it is really not possible to do it for the whole database at once).
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 4855
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
That's just too many, indeed.  Even if you manage to watch one every single day of your life, it'll take you 63 years to get through them all. Assuming you don't buy any new ones along the way.


I don't know what you are calculating or how much running time your DVDs have, but that not only sounds to much, but it IS :-D

If I would watch 24/7 and start now re-watching everything (including bonus materials) I'd "only" need 7 years, 211 days , 1 hour and 13 minutes (inlcuding bonus of 147 days, 16 hours, 32 minutes).

So watching only 7 hours a day, I would be done before I am 70 :-D

@huskersports: I regulary do database repair, especially as I do so many corrections/modifications with common names that week by week 10 - 100 actors can be deleted.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 9, Topic Views: 3606
Actually I am on creation countless Alt. Versions for several Disc IDs as they are used in more different box sets. As I want to keep the parent covers "officialy" for the childs, too, I have to do that and it's just a little bit of time to invest.

So the new Alt. Versions get the covers of the parent profile (which has allready been resized here online and isn't changed by the update anymore). But when I check the (now newly released) updates now, I get image updates. If I check them, there is absolutely no difference - neither in dimensions nor in fil size - but obviously anything has "changed". Is there any value "behind the comma", which could have a minimal variaton which caused that?

That's the first thing I am simply not able to understand. But what it makes even more difficult to understand is the fact, that this doesn't happen for all the childs of the same profile. I got 1 series ("Die Schlümpfe" ("The Smurfs")), consisting of 40+ discs with all 9 seasons. I did the same job for all discs, but only some seasons got this confusing image update, others luckily didn't.

For a season of another series, only 1 disc of 4 got this (not existing) update.

Especially in this situation I have to control every single one as it could have happened that I didn't create an Alt. Version for a disc (then I would get an update with the cover of the "original" Disc ID). But controlling and finding out that there is no (visible) change, is confusing.

a) How does this work or how could this happen?
b) Is there any change to avoid an update of replacing an image with an obviously identical one?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 0, Topic Views: 574
I didn't do anything else than the upload. And - as mentioned before - as only about 1000 profiles more were added since the last upload (no about 23.000) I didn't know what else to do. That's why I started this thread.

And if the upload only does the changes, why are so many title fields empty now in my online collection? I should mention: Before I upload, I do a database repair first to avoid/exclude problems caused by any "problems" in the database.

But "only minutes" I never head
Posted:
Topic Replies: 9, Topic Views: 3606
It's allready 2 weeks ago since I did my last update/upload of my collection but didn't have time so far to ask if this is kind of a "common" problem or if there are any known reasons for it.

I am quite sure that the size of my collection might have affected some problems, but the result is disappointing, too. When I uploaded the collection the last time (in October 2021) I might have had between 500 - 1000 DVDs less and it worked within 2 - 3 hours. This time it took at least twice as much for profiler just to scan my collection. And then the uploaded itself took another 4 - 5 hours. When it was nearly finished, a message popped up (I think to remember kind of "sever problems"). So I restarted and was happy that it worked quite fast this time. But when it was finished.... disappointment.

If you take a look on my collection online (http://www.invelos.com/dvdcollection.aspx/Magmadrag), lots of entries even don't have titles. The title-field is empty and on the collection number no click is possible.

So before I start to waste another load of hours with no improved result: Do I need to open a ticket or is my collection too big?

Technical reasons on my side I exclude as I got a gigabit line and am used to have a very good up-/download-speed.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 9, Topic Views: 3606
I started.... and the first about 100 are created and contributed.
During this process I recognized another advantage - at least for collectors:

If anybody collects e. g. "Star Trek", he could have all different releases including their child profiles altough the childs of each have the same Disc ID
Posted:
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 3543
Sorry that I forgot that option in the poll. Confusing that I can change the name of the thread and the text - but not the options of the poll.

Next "problem" ("complication") then: I create the ALTs (calling them so from now on) for 10, 20, 30 TV-Series, each witch 30 - 50 discs. Really fine for me, my covers are now in official profiles, well done!

But: As I am the creator, only in my personal database (and for sure here online) the new ALTs are correctly connected to their parent. Anyone else who has the same parents has either to the delete the (now wrong) box set contents and to download the new or check out (which is much more time intensive) if there allready is the ALT with the same cover the parent has (and I have to do the same before I create new ones: check out if someone allready created what I plan to do).

For me myself the change will be work but the result will be great. But: How could all (with the same boxes) handle it to update/modify THEIR boxes (without becoming angry about me^^)?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 3543
As countless series get more and more re-releases, using the same Disc-ID for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th.... time, and nearly every time with new case & cover it looks a little bit as if "we" might have used much too less of the possibility of an alternative version.

During my actual work on the database I had to recognize that countless of my series hav such Disc IDs - with different covers. And I am thinking about a VERY huge change. Not totally sure as this will be another bunch of hours to spend, but so far it is at least an idea.

But this causes a bunch of questions:
- Can the database stand this? I got now idea if it has any restrictions but if I am not the only one with this idea and hundreds of people start doing the same, there will come up thousands of new profiles.
- As it is mostly for the covers (and maybe for the field for "case"), on the other side it causes more "control" as I think that there might be several alt. versions of a Disc ID but I am sure they are not connected one to another in any way? If this is the case the idea might die before I start.

To explain the last passage:
Let's say we had the 1st release of Star Trek Voyager. Season 1, Disc 1 has the (fictional) ID: "ABC" (That was the release with the plastic boxes for each season). The next version came up in the digipacs and gets ID "ABC #1". And then we have the whole season in a box, getting ID "ABC #2". Maybe there have been other releases with the same IDs, too, but this is just for explanation.
As (like I presume) they are not connected in any way, any correction of cast & crew (or running time, audio, subtitles etc.) which is done for "ABC" should additionally be done for "ABC #1" and "ABC #2".

So if anyone has the technical knowledge of "behind the scenes": Am I right with that presumption or IS there a connection of the alternative versions? Which means: If anybody does an updated contribution for "ABC #2" it is also done for "ABC" and "ABC #1"?

At least in theory this can't be, as sometimes the Disc IDs are identical, but the movies (or whatever is on the disc) are totally different (at least I think to remember cases like that).

And to make know what you think about those "AVs", there's a poll, no matter if you have the know how to answer my questions ;-)
Posted:
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 3543
latest appearance:

Spider-Man: A New Universe (as Terrence Hardy Jr.)
Posted:
Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 2522
For sure it's not fewer contributions, but it's less work for the Screeners if they don't need to correct wrong parsing manually.

And sorry to say: A software of that size should recognize if the two words are in the same field or in different ones! It's the same with artist names like "Mos - Def" / "Mos Def"

Btw: Altough the site doesn't "see" the difference, we have different version (like "Mos Def" as one name or two names) in the database. And as always (not depending on common names but also on correct names like the "Roger - Lloyd Pack" I mentioned before) me and a huge load of guys try correct errors in the database, changes "wrong" ("incommon") version(s) of names to the common names etc.

I can't believe your former post, that "J.D." and "J./D." are the same in the online database at least for one reason: If I changed from "J./D." to "J.D." and check out updates (before cintribution), I get one: The change back from "J.D." to "J./D.". So the database is correct ans definitely has two versions. Only the contribution-section of the site has that disfunction!
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 1751
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
the name was always stored in the DVD Profiler database as J./D./Evermore, and it still is. "No differences detected" indeed.
This forum thread hashed it all out.


Then I can't avoid to ask: Why is there any discussion about common names? For sure, there is the alternative "JD Evermore".

And additionally: If this doesn't matter for the database, in other cases it is absolutely against logic: "middle name" is the field for the (2nd christian) name. But it makes a huge difference, if it is a 2nd christian name or the first part of the name! Anyhow the online database should have the identical parsing to the local one on every computer. Just today I had a case to ask a Screener for manual parsing: "Roger - Lloyd - Pack" is wrongly parsed; as he is the son of "Charles Lloyd Pack", "Loyd" is not middle name; so correctl now it is "Roger - Lloyd Pack"

And as long as the site/database here doesn't see different parsings, it's always (imo unneccessary) manual work for the Screeners. Isn't it?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 1751
Different parsing one more becomes a crazy thing:

according to the common name thread
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=749141&PageNum=LAST#LASTPOST

now the common name is "J.D. - Evermore". I've changed all profiles containing "J. - D. - Evermore" but as long as this is the only change, the site tells me "no differences detected".

Any technical solution available for this?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 1751
If anyone owns this box, I'd appreciate further information: The child-profiles are full with cast & crew.

Well, I bought it used and I got "only" the 4 thinpacks and the box. Ofdb says that every case should have an additional card with further information. As I don't have them, I'd like to know what's to find on them.

Especially as I wanted to verify data and split/duplicate it for every single episode. Well, most of the crew listed in the profiles is not to find on any credits and absolutely no cast!

And others are in the existing profile the same as on imdb but totally different from the credits (e. g.: Composer (Profile): Kôji Makaino, (Credits): Kenji Mashino)

Does anybody have helpful further informations? Or even possibly scans of the cards I am missing? Especially to correct the existing data if neccessary (looking very much like from the - not allowed - imdb)
Posted:
Topic Replies: 0, Topic Views: 420
We all know that contributions depend on voting. Am I right that you are allowed to vote for a contribution as soon as the same EAN/UPC is part of your collection?

Well, I can ensure you that this is absolutely not enough!!!

The ones who recognize loadas of my contributions know that I am working on child profiles for tv series very much. No matter if the series has two discs, five or more. The same I just did for the docu-series "Civil War"

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098769/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

So the german release contains 5 discs with the 9 episodes and I did a box set with child profiles for each disc. And I got a No-Vote with the argument: "imho this doesn't fit the boxset definition. It's not a TV series and does not include more than one film"

Really? REALLY? That only proves that the voter does absolutely not know what he owns! And that is why "owning" alone is not enough right to vote!

Especially: Just imagine that he is the only other person owning this EAN like I do. So I only get his vote and that's a "No". Child profiles are initial and he can't avoid, but a declined contribution of the parent would avoid the connection of parent profile and the childs.

Similar case - but there the voter at least seems to know what he has - for another series. 2 discs, 6 episodes. I prefer the childs - and get another No-Vote. Argument: "there is no need to create a boxset". Smart statement! When is there ANY need for a box set? Wether you like it or not, but saying for all other owners that there is "no need" is nothing than a personal opinion. If he doesn't want it a box set, then it is his choice.

I had similar posts for awful contributions, destroying excisting material. No it's about ignorant (or stupid?) votings. More and more it becomes neccessary to install kind of a test to get the right for each of them! Would anybody be so kind and tell guys like them to take a look at what they own and not to vote out of their stomach?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 2491
Trying to submit

Aaron Johnson
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1093951/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t34
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Taylor-Johnson
actor, sometimes credited as "Aaron Taylor-Johnson"
BY 1990
known for
- Kick Ass (1 + 2)
- Savages
- Shanghai Nights
- Avengers: Age of Ultron

to separate from
Aaron Johnson
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4155584/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t16
actor, BY unknown
known for
- 7 Below
- The Anniversary at Shallow Creek
Posted:
Topic Replies: 5594, Topic Views: 333185
That enlarges my doubts. But the one who "created" the cast & crew fotos for free might have had a reason why there is the same foto for both names....
Posted:
Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 1169
The question so far is: Are those two the same actor or two different ones?

By the automatic pictures from here, they are the same, imdb says they are different.

"Naveen" (20/116) (at least in my collection) is known for
- Charmed (Original Series), Season 7, Episode 5 ("Styx Feet Under")
- Million Dollar Baby

"Naveen Andrews" (345/934) is known for
- Der englische Patient
- Die Fremde in Dir
- Lost (all Seasons)
- Mein großer Freund Joe
- Planet Terror
- Sense 8

The numbers in brackets are from the CLT and would make the common name perfectly clear, but we need any confirmation that this is the same actor/person.

According to Million Dollar Baby, this site lists him as "Naveen Andres"
https://filmreporter.de/stars/242-Naveen-Andrews
Posted:
Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 1169
Case closed
Posted:
Topic Replies: 1, Topic Views: 1042
Trying to submit

Jennifer Holt
US-Actress, BY 1920
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0392450/?ref_=tt_cl_t_3

to separate her from
Jennifer Holt
US-Actress, BY unknown
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1950359/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t84
Posted:
Topic Replies: 5594, Topic Views: 333185
Trying to submit:

John Newton (1925)
known actor for "The Fugitive", "Law & Order", "The Twilight Zone" etc.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0628541/?ref_=tt_cl_t_5

John Newton (1965)
known actor for "Superboy", The Mentalis" etc.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0628542/?ref_=tt_cl_t_1
Posted:
Topic Replies: 5594, Topic Views: 333185
It finally happened! According to too much troubles in here I got sick of invelos/DVD Profilerand will leave until there are massive changes. The ones who follow the forums might have recognized some of the threads I posted and except of quite a little few personal issues, the rest is technical stuff and it contains on people not doing their job correctly to my bad luck.

For sure here are the guys who post each and every time if technical issues come up that only Ken can solve them. Sorry to say, but I can't imagine that there is nobody here around who is able to contact this "Holy Ken", the godfather of invelos to make him perfectly clear, that without his return all the holes in the system are only adhesively plastered. And the number of plasters grows every day.

For me it sounds like a bad joke if someone protects the screeners for releasing false profiles with the argument "they don't have the DVD in front of them". But I think they are able to read, aren't they? And - most importand thing - the know the rules! If I am right with the last two points, things like my creations of disc profiles with more movies on one disc could never have happened.

As far as I know I don't know any screener or at least don't know if one of the guys I communicate with is one. Is it laziness or something else? Within this year I checked my whole collection where data is missing here in the database and entered all cast & crew of the credits. The confusing thing was to find 20 - 30 profiles in my collection which aren't here anymore. And I re-contributed them, always with a message to the screener when I originally added them to my collection. I still would like to know how this could have happened but no matter how many times I started my contribution with "@SCREENER", I never ever recieved any PM from them. So I still don't know if anybody ever has checked why or how official profiles were deleted and if it is sure that it won't happen again in the future. NO ONE CARES ABOUT!

The latest problem was the destruction of my original profile (wrongly more movies in one Disc-Profile) according to the rules. But that isn't the only reason to use the "Alternative Version" for. A couple of weeks before someone didn't use the "AV" to keep the covers of both different version of one TV Show (one is the single release of every series, the other is the whole series), no, he simply replaced all the excisting covers with his scans - instead of creating alternative versions for each disc. Once more the work of hours was destroyed! Thank you!

And there are all the technical problems which are urgently neccessary to be solved: Why could an update replace cast/crew without BY with someone with BY but not the other way round? If it is neccessary to do additional manual corrections after an update, what are the updates good for if they don't replace wrong data?

Back to the Alternative Versions: The rules have been modified for the last time more than 5 years ago. Every little change I tried to establish for an easier handling of a (at least huge) collection have been blocked. And strangly enough once again some of my contributions have been released alltough they didn't follow the rules.

Next technical step: I can vote for contributions or against them but nobody has been able to modify the site at least so see the parsing of a name. And we still have enough contributors who change the correct parsing with their updates to a wrong one.

Not to mention that too many people in here seem to be satisfied with the imdb-data. For myself I have to say: I use it if the profile doesn't have any data and I got no time to fill it with the credits. But there are enough who avoid this work, no matter if there is correct data on imdb or not. And by typing thousands of series episodes I had to find out that there is too much cast & crew with no coincidence of imdb and the real episode credits.

To make this not a novel but at least to mention it: We only can separate the same name by BYs. But after all these years there wasn't found any solution to separate two persons with the same name AND the same BY. As the rules still don't handle this, wrong data is automatically "correct" according to the rules.

I've spent quite a lot of time to do several thousands of contributions but for most of the problems there are no solutions, only flimsy excuses, shifting everything to the fault of Ken. I can spend my time with much better things than wasting it for a community which doesn't exsit anymore and where one hand doesn't know what the other does!

Goody bye and good luck keeping this corpse alive with more plasters!
Posted:
Topic Replies: 15, Topic Views: 7010
This brings me close to the decision to stop contributing for some reasons:

The guys wo release contributions should know the rules also, don't they? As the initial Disc-Profile was released without any problem with all three movies in it, how could this have happened? Declining the contribution allready then with the reason of thos sub-disc-level child profiles would not have caused that trouble.

And: Meanwhile I feel personally attacked by the releasers: Accepting an alt. version according to the rules seems to be okay, but accepting a non-alternative version which destroys my work (see one of my last threads according to alt. versions) enhances my disbelief in a so called "community" here

And: I am not sure if the Alt. Version was established in the rules in 2016 or before. So waht about all the profiles which were correct before and became wrong by establishing this new rule?

The rule was at least established before "SD on BluRay" was released. And imo it should be overthought especially in that case: Imagine you have 10 - 20 movies on one SD-Bluray and need to same Disc-ID for every single movie. If we didn't have much confusion before, this will finally make that possible.

So to say: My time for contributing might end for a while as here is no teamwork anymore. Here are the ones who know the rules and the releasers who either doin't know or don't practice them. And destroying work is not acceptable months and years later!

Goodbye!
Posted:
Topic Replies: 24, Topic Views: 6452
I need your help to find out what is right or wrong.

1. "Hollywood Collection" contains 6 movies, 3 on a disc
2. I created the parent (by EAN) for the case and two childs by Disc-ID (each for 3 movies)
3. I got an update where the Disc-ID was used for just one movie of each, all other data was deleted/erased and for the other movies someone else created alternative versions of the Disc-ID

I know about Alternative Versions, but is the contributer right to delete existing data? In my opinion the Disc-Profile for the whole disc (with all 3 movies credited) should be kept and for the first movie of each disc there should have been created a further "alternative version". As far as I know only a few people enjoy profiles on "sub-disc-level".

So could someone explain me which way is right or wrong in situations like these?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 24, Topic Views: 6452
And it doesn't stop.... could someone finally teach those "Wannabe"-Contributors the meaning and sense of the CLT? I just got another senseless update, replacing "Dwayne Johnson" (194/1657) with "Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson" (16/77)

We urgently need a change! More than half of the updates I got within the last few days I had to block as they replaced correct data in the profiles with wrong! 
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 2200
Invelos Forums->Posts by Magmadrag Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6  Previous   Next