Quote:
Look, I actually agree with you in regards to database functions such as linking, which is precisely why I create my own profiles and don't download.

Failing that, there is always your local database (most importantly)  in which you can enter data as you see fit ( as you know). A win-win situation as I see it.

Quote:
Quoting JMGuer:

Quote:
Look, I actually agree with you in regards to database functions such as linking, which is precisely why I create my own profiles and don't download.

Failing that, there is always your local database (most importantly)  in which you can enter data as you see fit ( as you know). A win-win situation as I see it.

Really.

A user who buys the program, downloads profiles, and ends up with broken searching, linking, sorting, and filtering, is a "win" situation.
Really.

Quote:
Quoting JMGuer:

Quote:
A win-win situation as I see it.

Only for people who have time to spend on this program. .

Quote:
Quoting JMGuer:

Quote:
... which in your case shouldn't be a problem.

When I have time, I prefer watch a movie than filling its profile. The best situation would be a correct database, so that each user would get useful data when downloading profiles. It is very frustrating to see the best movie program partially ruined by the worst database (in fact it is not a database, it is a collection of erratic data).

Quote:
Quoting JMGuer:

Quote:
Then you get down to what is the "correct database" as people will have different opinions on what "correct" is.

It is basic and simple :

one "object" = one, and only one, identifier

If you don't have this, you don't have a "database", since no "database function" can work.

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting emmeli:

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Is it easier to link Joan Sampson to FT24587 than to Joan Smith ? I do not think so.

but it is. you have change one (1) profil for FT24587 after she has married again. the result is, that all profiles get this update and no more discuss for any common name.

I agree with that , and that is why I'm in favor of a new system.

But, once again, I think this will never happen, and even if it happens one day, we have still thousands of variants without any common name thread to link. With my proposal, those links would be easy to create very quickly. Doing nothing with rules means we'll wait until the new system is implemented to begin to work on those thousands of non linking names.

At a local level, this is very achievable and easy to do (assuming the interest/passion is there) you simply designate cast/crew with the same name as (I), (II), etc.

Tony Curtis (I): Some Like it Hot

Tony Curtis (II): Something About AJ



Carleton Young (I): No Escape


Carleton Young (II): His Kind of Woman

You can have 10,000 DVDs/films in your database....300,000 cast/crew...every entry will be correct and properly linked.
Actress Jane Doe (I) decides to change her name to Jane Dow...and you want to change it in your local to reflect this, no problem, all you need to do is change one entry and the other 50
titles you have with her in them will change automatically...always linked.
Since you are the only one entering data into your local you will never have a case of improperly linked names.
You buy a new DVD with Carleton Young in it....real easy to find out (assuming you don't already know this info, eg.: visual recognition of said actor) which Carleton Young it is, (I) or (II)

No need to fuss over common names, birth years, credited as.....Tony Curtis (I) is Tony Curtis (I) is Tony Curtis (I)....makes no difference that he was credited as Anthony Curtis in a couple of his early movies...makes no difference what year he was born in....Tony Curtis (I) is Tony Curtis (I). Infallible.

Be it (I), (II) or FT24587, FT24588 or whatever, the idea is the same......but one will always need to determine (make an effort to find out) which name is which

Quote:
Quoting JMGuer:

Quote:
At a local level, this is very achievable and easy to do (assuming the interest/passion is there) you simply designate cast/crew with the same name as (I), (II), etc.

Of course, you are right. As for me, I prefer to use fake BY, I find it looks better in the actors list window.

But the problem is not local. Many fans have a correct linking for them, but all this work (made several times in parallel) is useless for average users who have not more time than just download their profiles from the online database. And those just get all the errors requested by rules.

Quote:
Yes, that would be the best situation, but do you realistically think that will ever happen? Some users seem pretty satisfied with the way things are.

Quote:
a user who buys the program, downloads no profiles. "enters data as he sees fit" (ie: creates his own profiles from scratch), ends up with no "broken searching, sorting, and filtering", yes a win situation.

Quote:
Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Why is that a problem?

I am guessing it is a problem because there are people who like to have that information.

Quote:
No. Never claimed it did. It represents me.