Quoting GSyren:

Quote:

What would be wrong with using the IMDb name for common name?

It's simply against the rules, I think...

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Kluge:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:

What would be wrong with using the IMDb name for common name?

It's simply against the rules, I think...

No, it is against the rules to mass copy from them.  They can't copyright the actor/crew member name, so using that name as our common name isn't a violation of their ToS.

But the IMDB names are not what we call "common name", only sometime they can be the same, so if we blindly use the IMDB names we go against the rules, don't we?

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Kluge:

Quote:
But the IMDB names are not what we call "common name", only sometime they can be the same, so if we blindly use the IMDB names we go against the rules, don't we?

I see where there might be some confusion so let me try and explain a little better.

Nobody is suggesting that we use the IMDb name, what is being suggested is that we use the raw CLT numbers.  The argument against that, from what I can tell, is that the CLT numbers are skewed in favor of the IMDb name, rather than the actual credit name.  This may, or may not be true, but it really isn't relevant to GSyren's suggestion as using the raw CLT numbers isn't against the rules.

Well first of all the IMDB Name is an issue in the CLT and skewing the numbers, that is an absolute fact.  I run across profiles all the time that look exactly like IMDB  and there is still a lot of IMDB mined data in the existing profiles.

But you are absolutely correct in that it is not relevant to GSyren's suggestion as using the raw CLT numbers isn't against the rules.  The fact it is not against the rules to use the raw CLT numbers

The rules pertaining to the CLT state:

Quote:

It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT. If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary. However, in most cases it is not required.

The inclusion of CLT results in contribution notes is strongly desired but not required. Note: In the case of uncertainty, leaving this out may cause the contribution to be declined.

This states jus to use the CLT and only states documentation should be provided if there is a dispute.  And how I interpret that is a dispute with the CLT results.  Which is why we open common name threads.  (when someone does not trust the results).

But in my opinion that in no way states that the raw numbers cannot be used (if a valid common name thread is not available)

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Let me make a bold statement that may possibly upset some people:

The CLT is never wrong!

The figures that the CLT presents may not show what you would like it to show, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong, just that your expectations are wrong.

For the purpose of establishing a common name it doesn't really matter what the CLT figures represent. All that matters is that it consistently shows the same thing to all users.

The common name threads are trying to establish a more "correct" count, based on the expectations of some users as to what is correct. But using a more correct count isn't helping. Actually quite the opposite. They just confuse the issue. During their lifetime they show ever changing data.

It's bad enough that correcting actual credits changes the CLT data. That in itself diminishes the value of using the CLT data. But trying to figure out how to count TV credits or other credits where you don't like how the CLT counts just makes it even worse.

We do desperately need a better name linking system. But until we have one, trying to outsmart the CLT is not helping at all.

What is so wrong with correcting the CLT by providing the correct name that is in that film's credits?

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Let me make a bold statement that may possibly upset some people:

The CLT is never wrong!

Given that the CLT just counts based on the data it has, it is always correct in the context of the data in the DB, but like all database applications like the it is a "garbage in, garbage out" situation if some of the data is incorrect.  However I would say that from what I can tell from reading past posts it was never altered when it came to be allowed that child profiles could exist. 

Quote:

The figures that the CLT presents may not show what you would like it to show, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong, just that your expectations are wrong.

For the purpose of establishing a common name it doesn't really matter what the CLT figures represent. All that matters is that it consistently shows the same thing to all users.

The common name threads are trying to establish a more "correct" count, based on the expectations of some users as to what is correct. But using a more correct count isn't helping. Actually quite the opposite. They just confuse the issue. During their lifetime they show ever changing data.

I look at it like this. People are attempting to get the most accurate data possible and there is nothing wrong with that and in fact it is even in the rules that he CLT can be disputed.  There are still a lot of profiles with IMDB mined data and incorrect data.  Gathering correct data for the database is helpful. 

Your statement about common name threads "During their lifetime they show ever changing data" is a statement that is applicable to the CLT raw numbers as well since new titles can be added.  Stating that does not quantify anything different about common name threads versus raw CLT numbers.

You don't hink it is helping, but others do and it is wihtin the rules to dispute the CLT, but disputing the CLT takes work and people are willing to do that work to get the correct data.  The expectations are for accurate data and it is not wrong to strive to meet the expectation instead of just blindly accepting facts you know not to be true.

Quote:


We do desperately need a better name linking system. But until we have one, trying to outsmart the CLT is not helping at all.

Yes we do

I'm not sure how you know how IMDb and others come up with their names, but it seems that it should be very simple.

How many times has the the person been credited on screen in a particular way? 

Whether it's TV or not should not make a difference.  We are looking for the most "common" way they are credited.  Qualifying it by saying you only count their name once per season, does not necessarily give you their most "commonly" credited name. 

And what about people who are credited differently within the same season.  Yes that happens!

However, the whole "common name" system is an abomination and needs to GO!!!!!!!

Contributions are an important part of this database and submitting them is time consuming for those are sharing that work with others.

If the community takes the time to contribute to the database then Ken should take the time to address those issues not clear in the rules.

Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
I look at it like this. People are attempting to get the most accurate data possible and there is nothing wrong with that and in fact it is even in the rules that he CLT can be disputed.  There are still a lot of profiles with IMDB mined data and incorrect data.  Gathering correct data for the database is helpful.

I agree, gathering accurate data is a good thing.  Unfortunately, when it comes to the common name, it doesn't matter.  As long as everybody is using the same common name, it really doesn't matter what that name is.  It could be 'Xc%&#vh' and still be valid...as long as everybody used it.  That, I believe, is the point that GSyren is making.