I keep learning more an more everyday...and it makes me glad that we only rate the main feature here in R1 land.  Every release of a particular film, with the exception of 'unrated' releases, will have the same exact rating and the same exact rating description.  They will also contain the small disclaimer, "Bonus Material Not Rated."

We've discussed this before, here and
here.

And I believe that recent contribution was an oversight on my part 

However, I don't think we ever came to a consensus on the formatting did we? Unless I'm just missing the thread. But I don't think we should include genres in the rating details, as you have done in your contribution.

Quoting jmbox:

Quote:
However, I don't think we ever came to a consensus on the formatting did we? Unless I'm just missing the thread. But I don't think we should include genres in the rating details, as you have done in your contribution.

Correct there's no consensus on how to format the data. I have made a suggestion in the Feature Request forum but had little response to it.

As for including genres, while "Thriller" is a genre, it also describes the type of content that film contains so it's more than just a genre. Also, it's the details the BBFC felt necessary to describe why the rating was given.


Quoting T!M:

Quote:

and instead take them from the "region-specific ratings information website" (from the rules), which in this case is bbfc.co.uk.

As stated in the OP, BOTH sets of information came from the BBFC website. The one originally submitted came from the theatrical release and not the DVD release.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
As stated in the OP, BOTH sets of information came from the BBFC website. The one originally submitted came from the theatrical release and not the DVD release.

Yeah, but it's the same rating - just in two different formats. One in the outdated format (also including non-applicable content such as themes and genres), which has since been abandoned, and one in the current format. DVD Profiler is only set up to properly deal with the current format, so that's the one I'm using.

But per the rules, it isn't for the original DVD release so if those are contributed, they should get declined. And while the rating is the same, the consumer advice (or Ratings Details) aren't the same. The fact that one format may or may not be used now isn't relevant to what was used when the DVD was first released.

Was the rating description for this specific release? Yes, use it. No, don't use it. It couldn't be simpler.

As I said, whether or not a format is no longer used is 100% irrelevant. We only use original release info. It's no different to only allowing original scans of covers.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but any contributions that don't relate to original releases will be voted against in accordance with the Rules.

Indeed they do allow for using the BBFC website, which I've already said. What they don't do however is allow for use of info relating to a different release. So therefore is against the rules. You can word it any way you want but using anything other than the info associated with the original release isn't allowed now any more than it has ever been. Whether or not the info is on the cover or on the website, it doesn't matter. If it's original info we use it, if not we don't.

Quote:
but mostly that it doesn't really offer the actual rating details we're after, but rather a much wider kind of "consumer advice", including elements that have no bearing on the rating whatsoever.

It is the information that the BBFC felt important at the time. There's nothing in the Rules saying to only enter X info but leave out Y & quite rightly IMHO. You say it has no bearing on the rating at all but it does. You wouldn't find a U rated Thriller. The field name is Rating Details & ALL of that info relates to why that title was given a 15.

While the box may not allow for proper layout of the table (possibly because Ken wasn't aware of them) people CAN & DO format the contents so they can be entered.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
So therefore is against the rules.

I disagree. Obviously you're entitled to your opinion as well, but you do need to understand it's not the only one out there. I've presented you with a different one - one that allows tracking UK rating details in a consistent manner, which actually properly fits in the field we're given for it, and which tracks the actual rating details as opposed to a much vaguer and incoherent-looking bit of "consumer advice".

I've already said that you're entitled to your own opinion so I'm aware there are other opinions.

However:

Quote:
Studios occasionally re-release titles with the same UPC, but with changed content – for example Cover Images, Case Type and Overview. All information in the main DVD Profiler database is to be for the Original Release version of the disc; do not contribute any information that is specific to a re-release. You can of course keep this re-release information in your local database profile, but do not contribute it to the main database.

That can not be interpreted in any other way. It does not allow for that info to be contributed.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
I've already said that you're entitled to your own opinion so I'm aware there are other opinions.

Wonderful, you're aware. You're just summarily dismissing them, then? 

I'm not dismissing it at all. I've shown how & why it's not allowed.

Quote:
That can not be interpreted in any other way. It does not allow for that info to be contributed.

It can and it does. This is not about re-releases - it's about that we're after the actual rating details, not after a much vaguer, not consistently-enterable bit of "consumer advice" (I recently saw one which actually noted that the film was a "romantic comedy" - yeah, sure, those are valuable "rating details"?!  ). Note that the field is neatly designed to hold the actual rating details, while so far no two DVD Profiler have been able to agree on how to exactly shoehorn the "table" thingy into the field, nor which bits to include and which bits to leave out. I'm also happy to report that the screeners have consistently agreed with my point of view on this, even despite no-votes from your "camp" on the matter.

Of course it's about re-releases. The database has never allowed data not relating to the original release to be entered. This should be no different. And of course the Screeners would accept them. I would presume for the same reason I already stated that Ken didn't cater for the tabled layouts in the first place - They weren't aware of them. While they may be accepted in that format, I've also had no problem in correcting them.