![](/images/MasterShadowLeftTop.gif) |
|
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 2 3 4 ...7 Previous Next
|
Use of "Credited As" |
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: ![High Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/1.png) | Posts: 6,635 |
| Posted: | | | | I repeat...this is not about determining a Common Name! Whatever Ken does has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about just one field...the "As Credited" field.... NOT THE COMMON NAME FIELD! "As credited" belongs in the "Credited AS" field. Simple. It does not belong in the "Common Name" field if the existing Common Name and the actual film credit are DIFFERENT! I really have to wonder if this is really that difficult to comprehend or is it a matter of people having already decided that they will do everything they can to undermine the system that Ken has created because they think they have a better idea. ![](/images/emoticons/brood.gif) | | | Hal |
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: ![High Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/1.png) | Posts: 585 |
| Posted: | | | | I repeat... you can't have one without the other. It's basic database management.
You are assuming the existing Actor List is complete and accurate. When entering credits, you do not have a "Common Name" field to work with, you have a "Cast Member" field which may or may not be their "Common Name". If we assume that every "Cast Member" name that's currently in there is correct and accurate, then I entirely and wholely agree with you. Any variation to that and it goes into the "Credited As" field. Unfortunately, it's not that simple for the reasons you yourself have stated. People have been changing the "Cast Member" names to who knows how many variations. It can't be trusted as a "Common Names" database.
Unless Ken locks this down or possibly creates a voting system for Common Names (I don't even want to think about how that will work) then I don't understand how you yourself can trust what is currently in there for some actors and how you are positive whether to use the "Credited As" or not. | | | "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" - Douglas Bader "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams | | | Last edited: by Vega |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: ![High Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/1.png) | Posts: 6,635 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Vega: Quote: Quoting hal9g:
Quote: Once again, an attempt is being made to divert this thread into a discussion on an entirely different topic.
This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with determining Common Names.
It has to do with entering "Credited As" names from the actual film credits into the appropriate field when the actual film credit is different than the name that appears in the actor list (the Common Name). It makes no difference at all what the Common Name is. If the actual film credit is different, it should be entered in the "Credited As" field NOT the Common Name field.
Maybe I'm just not seeing this clearly, but I don't quite understand how you can separate the two.
I don't understand how you can discuss the "Credited As" field without discussing what exactly an actor's "Common Name" is. The "Actor List" you mention (as far as I understand it) is not a definitive list of "Common Names". It's just a list of actor names currently in the database. I see tons of duplicate names, some with initials, some without, some with middle names, some without, etc. It's just a big glob of what people have entered so far, that we may or may not trust. And actually, I'm not even sure if the "Actor List" I see is only of the movies I have in my database or whether it's a system wide "Actor List" of every movie entered in the system (and that determination actually has a huge bearing on my argument).
When using the "Credited As" field it makes a huge difference what the "Common Name" is because that's the name that should be entered. Otherwise you risk breaking links to every other movie that actor has been in.
I'm new to this part of the process so this is one thing I don't fully understand just yet and this will help me alot with understanding how all this works. Going back to the "Actor List" we see when entering credits. If it really is a system wide listing of all actor's throughout the entire database then I see your point. If a variation of the actor's name already exists, then use that as the Common Name and use whatever is in the actual credits as their "Credited As". That's assuming the first movie they were ever credited in uses the most common name they go by, but I don't think it's that simple. Especially because of the variations already present in the listings. If the "Actor List" we see is somehow related to only the movies we own then there's a huge problem with that as the name's you see (or don't see) may effect the linking with other users databases.
-edit- Okay, I'm a little slow in posting so part of I was thinking was answered. I'm curious about the last part though. Are we seeing the complete Actor List when editing the Cast/Crew in the profiles? (Common sense tells me, yes, but it's better to ask and look like an idiot, then to just assume) The actor list you see is a list of actors in your local database. It was populated by what you downloaded from the on-line, so it therefore contains names from the "wider community" but it also has names in it that you may have entered while creating new profiles. However, it is not the "entire" actor list from the main database. When creating a new profile, you are correct that you can essentially select whatever variation you prefer if there are multiple variations of a name in your actor list. What you pick is up to you. Once you upload it to the main database, it becomes the Common Name for that actor for that profile and may not link up to other profiles in the main database with different variations of that actor's name. That's exactly why a standard is needed for Common Names. For existing profiles, the "Common Name" field is already populated and probably links that profile to many others with that same actor. What is happening is that people are auditing existing profiles and finding that the "Credited As" field is wrong because it matches the Common Name which is not how the actor was credited in that particular film. Instead of just entering the actual film credit into the "Credited As" field, these users are changing both the "Common Name" and the "Credited As" name to match the film credits. This essentially breaks any pre-existing links that the former Common Name was providing. There is no reason to do this in order to get "as credited" itno DVDP. Only the "As Credited" field needs to be changed. | | | Hal |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: ![High Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/1.png) | Posts: 6,635 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Vega: Quote: I repeat... you can't have one without the other. It's basic database management.
You are assuming the existing Actor List is complete and accurate. When entering credits, you do not have a "Common Name" field to work with, you have a "Cast Member" field which may or may not be their "Common Name". If we assume that every "Cast Member" name that's currently in there is correct and accurate, then I entirely and wholely agree with you. Any variation to that and it goes into the "Credited As" field. Unfortunately, it's not that simple for the reasons you yourself have stated. People have been changing the "Cast Member" names to who knows how many variations. It can't be trusted as a "Common Names" database.
Unless Ken locks this down or possibly creates a voting system for Common Names (I don't even want to think about how that will work) then I don't understand how you yourself can trust what is currently in there for some actors and how you are positive whether to use the "Credited As" or not. Just to clear up semantics, Common Name and Actor List are the same thing. I'm not suggesting that we should trust the Actor List as a Common Name database. I know how trashed it is. I am saying that we should not make it worse by adding more variations. If we change the Common Name to match the "Credited As" name, then we are compounding the problem for no reason. If we select a pre-existing "Common Name" from the actor list (for new profiles) or accept the existing "Common Name" (in existing profiles) and then just enter the "Credited As" field to match the actual film credits, we will at least have the "Credited As" field correct, and we will minimize futher garbage entering the Actor List until Ken can come up with a Common Name solution. Furthermore, we won;t be breaking pre-existing links by changing the Common Name. | | | Hal | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: ![Highest Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/4.png) | Posts: 13,201 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
The actor list you see is a list of actors in your local database. It was populated by what you downloaded from the on-line, so it therefore contains names from the "wider community" but it also has names in it that you may have entered while creating new profiles. However, it is not the "entire" actor list from the main database.
When creating a new profile, you are correct that you can essentially select whatever variation you prefer if there are multiple variations of a name in your actor list. What you pick is up to you. Once you upload it to the main database, it becomes the Common Name for that actor for that profile and may not link up to other profiles in the main database with different variations of that actor's name. That's exactly why a standard is needed for Common Names.
For existing profiles, the "Common Name" field is already populated and probably links that profile to many others with that same actor.
What is happening is that people are auditing existing profiles and finding that the "Credited As" field is wrong because it matches the Common Name which is not how the actor was credited in that particular film. Instead of just entering the actual film credit into the "Credited As" field, these users are changing both the "Common Name" and the "Credited As" name to match the film credits. This essentially breaks any pre-existing links that the former Common Name was providing. There is no reason to do this in order to get "as credited" itno DVDP. Only the "As Credited" field needs to be changed. I understand what you are saying, but that 'probably' concerns me. For all I know, the current 'common name' entry, in my profile, is wrong and the correct common name is the name in the credits. That 'unknown' is what concerns me. Without a standard for 'common name' we may be, inadvertantly, leaving bad data in the main db. At least with 'as credited' in both fields, we know the data is correct for that profile. As I said, I understand what you are saying but I don't know that we can seperate the two fields. ![](/images/emoticons/confused.gif) | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand. The Centauri learned this lesson once. We will teach it to them again. Though it take a thousand years, we will be free. - Citizen G'Kar |
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: ![High Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/1.png) | Posts: 585 |
| Posted: | | | | Hal, Thanks for clearing that up for me and confirms what I suspected that I was only seeing a list of mostly local Actor/Crew entries. I'm with you as far as not trashing it any further, but the problem is that if the Actor List is based on the local database then a user with 100 DVD's is at a disadvantage to adding/editing a profile versus someone else who has 3000 DVD's and a more complete database. It seems the best solution at the moment would be to maintain a master list of Actor/Crew names just like we currently do with the profiles and have that as part of the internet update. At least in that way everyone (who keeps their profiler updated) will have the same "Master list of cast/crew" which can atleast to some point be considered the "Common Names". It wouldn't be perfect but would be better that how it's currently handled as you described. There will need to be some major cleanup of the current Cast/Crew database though before considering it anywhere close to a "Common Name" database. And some kind of restrictions will need to be placed on who can make changes to it. I don't envy Ken's position in all this at all. Ken would probably have to change the Profiler to force an update of the local database any time a user attempts to edit a profile (just incase they decide to upload those changes later). Of course none of this helps as far as what to do now. Hopefully the voters and screeners will be diligent enough to keep things from getting out of hand. | | | "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" - Douglas Bader "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams | | | Last edited: by Vega |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: ![High Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/1.png) | Posts: 6,635 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote: Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
The actor list you see is a list of actors in your local database. It was populated by what you downloaded from the on-line, so it therefore contains names from the "wider community" but it also has names in it that you may have entered while creating new profiles. However, it is not the "entire" actor list from the main database.
When creating a new profile, you are correct that you can essentially select whatever variation you prefer if there are multiple variations of a name in your actor list. What you pick is up to you. Once you upload it to the main database, it becomes the Common Name for that actor for that profile and may not link up to other profiles in the main database with different variations of that actor's name. That's exactly why a standard is needed for Common Names.
For existing profiles, the "Common Name" field is already populated and probably links that profile to many others with that same actor.
What is happening is that people are auditing existing profiles and finding that the "Credited As" field is wrong because it matches the Common Name which is not how the actor was credited in that particular film. Instead of just entering the actual film credit into the "Credited As" field, these users are changing both the "Common Name" and the "Credited As" name to match the film credits. This essentially breaks any pre-existing links that the former Common Name was providing. There is no reason to do this in order to get "as credited" itno DVDP. Only the "As Credited" field needs to be changed.
I understand what you are saying, but that 'probably' concerns me. For all I know, the current 'common name' entry, in my profile, is wrong and the correct common name is the name in the credits. That 'unknown' is what concerns me. Without a standard for 'common name' we may be, inadvertantly, leaving bad data in the main db. At least with 'as credited' in both fields, we know the data is correct for that profile.
As I said, I understand what you are saying but I don't know that we can seperate the two fields. ![](/images/emoticons/confused.gif) Doesn't just correcting the "Credited As" field make the data correct for that profile? Once Ken comes up with a solution, a massive cleanup of Common Names is going to be required. By limiting changes to the "Credited As" field, we know we are making one field correct, and we are not adding to an already huge problem by leaving the Common Name alone ( at least for contrbuting...as always, you can do whatever you want in your local). | | | Hal |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: ![High Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/1.png) | Posts: 6,635 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Vega: Quote: Hal,
Thanks for clearing that up for me and confirms what I suspected that I was only seeing a list of mostly local Actor/Crew entries.
I'm with you as far as not trashing it any further, but the problem is that if the Actor List is based on the local database then a user with 100 DVD's is at a disadvantage to adding/editing a profile versus someone else who has 3000 DVD's and a more complete database.
It seems the best solution at the moment would be to maintain a master list of Actor/Crew names just like we currently do with the profiles and have that as part of the internet update. At least in that way everyone (who keeps their profiler updated) will have the same "Master list of cast/crew" which can atleast to some point be considered the "Common Names". It wouldn't be perfect but would be better that how it's currently handled as you described.
There will need to be some major cleanup of the current Cast/Crew database though before considering it anywhere close to a "Common Name" database. And some kind of restrictions will need to be placed on who can make changes to it. I don't envy Ken's position in all this at all. Ken would probably have to change the Profiler to force an update of the local database any time a user attempts to edit a profile (just incase they decide to upload those changes later).
Of course none of this helps as far as what to do now. Hopefully the voters and screeners will be diligent enough to keep things from getting out of hand. Totally agree, and I understand that Ken is working on just such a database for Common Names that everyone will have access to. I'm trying to prevent existing links that people have worked hard to create, from being destroyed because some people either don't care, don't understand or something worse. | | | Hal |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: ![High Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/1.png) | Posts: 3,480 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote: I understand what you are saying, but that 'probably' concerns me. For all I know, the current 'common name' entry, in my profile, is wrong and the correct common name is the name in the credits. That 'unknown' is what concerns me. Without a standard for 'common name' we may be, inadvertantly, leaving bad data in the main db. At least with 'as credited' in both fields, we know the data is correct for that profile.
As I said, I understand what you are saying but I don't know that we can seperate the two fields. ![](/images/emoticons/confused.gif) With 'as credited' in both fields, we don't know anything about whether we've improved the common name or not. The 'common name' is not profile-specific, so making both names match the credits of one film provides only a false sense of correctness. It's sort of (but admittedly not exactly) like saying that if we don't have a standard for determining the release date for a DVD that we'll just use the production year. Some films are released to DVD in the same year as they're produced, but not always. But just because they're both dates, doesn't make the two dates 'correct for that profile'. The only guidance we have for common name is currently in the rules as "where the person's name differs from the credited name." But some are reading that as "if you don't know whether the existing common name is correct or not, then change the common name to match the credited name." That's nowhere in the rules. The only source for 'as credited' is the credits. There is no undisputed source for common name. But there's no provision in the rules to use 'as credited' for the common name in the absence of such a source. The only choice is to leave it alone if you don't want to go down the road of trying to prove the common name somehow. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 21,610 |
| Posted: | | | | And without a standard you can't PROVE a Common Name, James. You can only provide what YOU think the Common Name, some other user is just as free to say NO I think the Common Name is this and there we go; off to the ping-pong wars with everyone trying get their version of what they think the Common Name should be. We can do NOTHING in this area at this time. No one has been willing to even TRY to define exactly how we might be able to do this. We have one user who is trying to apply some bizarre explanation of not changing the existing information, which might be nothing more than a typo, I have seen plenty of that, but he wants to leave it in the database. ![](/images/emoticons/rolleyes.gif) WE have a whole bunch of users simply looking at theRules as they were modified. The only person who appears to have tried to do anything in this area is me. I have at least presented a workable solution, that offers many benefits. Unfortunately it requires action on Ken's part. Well it looks like we have to wait for Ken to take action anyway, so whatever Ken comes up with is where i will go, I seem to recall a particular user who for years ignored the clear unstated (and now we know why) direction that Ken wanted to go, because it wasn't the way HE wanted to go and now that user is trying to dictate the direction of the program on his own. His response was that Ken should comment or point me at ken's comment. So we have NOT ONE but at least TWO public comments one from Ken and one from Gerri and he is still trying to have it his way. I figured after Gerri's comment he would sit down and be quiet...but nope. Tell me, Hal you would have us ignore the film credits in favor of leaving the names as they are found in the Actor data table. I have just finished an audit on a title which had many incorrectly entered names (typos) and many of those people have precisiely ONE single fim listed on their resume, yet YOU would leave that data in place, ROFL, simply unbelievable a typo becomes the default Common Name. Gerri did not say to do anything in particular, she said specifically that Ken is aware of the issues and has an idea in mind, even that is not good enough for that user he is continuing to try to dictate HIS way. What do I say? Simple sit back, be patient and wait, Ken will provide the direction and then we can move forward from there. We have not had a functioning alias system for THREE years, there is no need to rush prematurely making changes because we can, a few more days or weeks isn't going to kill any of us. I am as anxious as anybody to have this resolved, but I don't see a way forward right now, if I did I would have outlined it for consideration. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!! CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it. Outta here
Billy Video | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| Registered: April 7, 2007 | Posts: 357 |
| Posted: | | | | Let's wait for Ken to get better and solve all this (get well soon). I'll still pop in my opinion if that's allowed?
It is tough in a lot of cases we need to show 2 things; first that there is a common name and secondly that the credited as actor is one and the same as the common name.
It's no real problem if the latter is proved to have a credited as entry linked to any common name since later updating that name to an agreed common name would still link it to all fims made the actor. At the moment it's impossible to find all fims made by the same actor because of variations in credited name. The accuracy or not of a common name is something for debate but largely irrelevant so long as the credited as linked to the one record are the same person. It could be a URN and still work as intended.
On the other hand we have the field and the rules as they are; just because an update is coming and some don't like it it would be wrong to vote no if one was satisfied that the submission met the rules. It's usual practise when interpreting rules and law that in the abscence of any definition within the rule itself normal dictionary definitions apply. Common is an ordinary word and it has a non technical meaning (of the most familiar type or shared by two or more people or things in this context)
If a submission meets both of these criteria the submission is in accordance with the rules. I don't think at this stage outside of the dictionary definition I have to concern myself with which name should be the common name and which the credited when voting so long as the most familiar for me is the common. Eg Godfather 2 Robert De Niro is credited as Robert DeNiro I'm happy to have De Niro as the common name. Of course many would be more obscure then its down to the submitter to convince me that the common name meets the dictionary definition. | | | Last edited: by Graveworm |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: ![Highest Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/4.png) | Posts: 17,330 |
| Posted: | | | | I have to agree with the others... I don't see how you can separate the two... at least without making things worse then they are now. I think as for now the best bet is to go strictly with as credited until Ken brings out his solution for common names. | | | Pete |
| Registered: April 4, 2007 | Posts: 877 |
| Posted: | | | | I'm sorry, but they are right, you can't seperate the two fields.
BUT, you can seperate the local and the online use. You could decide for a common name locally, change all profiles accordingly and as soon as a solution for common names is found you either update or leave your common name as it is, depending on whether it's correct by the new solution or not. THEN you can upload it.
The problem with that is the possibility of Ken switching to Skips system, linking instead of a common name. That's why I'd like to hear a word on this by Ken. It would be a shame if people put their effort in local common names and suddenly it all gets deleted because of a database change. | | | - Jan |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,694 |
| Posted: | | | | As I've said before, and given the latest round of he said/she said, Ken should just TURN OFF this common name mess until he has a workable solution. THEN he should just put it out there and tell us how it works instead of all this garbage now that is slowly turning the database to junk.
Unless and until he finalizes something workable, go back to entering strictly as the data appears on the credit roll. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 Make America Great Again! |
| ![DVD Profiler Unlimited Registrant DVD Profiler Unlimited Registrant](/images/PUD.PNG) ![Star Contributor Star Contributor](/images/PSC.PNG) | Kevin | Registered March 22, 2001 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 609 |
| Posted: | | | | I"m agreeing with John again!!! Aughhh!!!! ![](/images/emoticons/laugh.gif) |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 4,596 |
| Posted: | | | | I find this hard to believe and reconcile with but...I too have to agree with John. IMO the "credited as" feature as it currently stands is being misused/abused and its getting out of control ![](/images/emoticons/anxious.gif) . | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 ...7 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](/images/MasterShadowRightTop.gif) |