Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:
After all even the now existing compromise is nowhere near covering all the different types of metal packages (as pointed out by rdodolak).

But the Steelbook collectors will be satisfied, and that's all that really matters.

---------------

 

I don't think there are 'collectors' of MetalPaks, IronPacks, or other types like SteelBooks.  It is a big difference to those that care.  If you don't care & don't collect them, then why do you care?

Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:
Thanks dee1959jay.

Possibly too late now to remind of one of the basic rules for databases:
Keep it simple!

The problem with that logic is that you then have a simple database. 

Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:
IMO, those that by all means want to differentiate between the different types of "Cases made of metal" should do so local (Magic Word: Tags).
After all even the now existing compromise is nowhere near covering all the different types of metal packages (as pointed out by rdodolak).

I do use tags just for that purpose.  It doesn't cover all of them, just the most important one that probably covers the vast majority of Metal Case profiles.

Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
This sort of reply is the perfect illustration of the lack of empathy experts often display towards novices. This is why often IT helpdesks are ineffective, user manuals are so poor etc.

My reply wasn't meant to offend but it should have been a time for celebration.  Nor was it meant to be demeaning or looking down on novice users.  As human beings we're always learning something new.  So why stop now?  In fact simplifying the options because we're afraid it's too complex for novice users doesn't do anyone any good especially the novice users.  Why would we not want them to learn something new?

IMHO, there are much more complex contributable items already in the software.  The cast and crew sections are by far the most complex and time consuming to complete.  Or what about the Common Name which can ping pong back and forth over time.  Common Name entries can take a lot of time to research such information and I'd definitely say this isn't for the novice user but that doesn't mean they can't figure it out.  If we're afraid of making the data too complex for the novice user then maybe we should eliminate these items as they are too complex.

Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:
Thanks dee1959jay.

Possibly too late now to remind of one of the basic rules for databases:
Keep it simple!

But a database is only as good as the data it contains.  If the data becomes too simplified then the database may become useless for our purposes.  We all have to realize that not all of the data will be used by all users but it does get used by some of the users so it does serve a purpose.

If a specific user doesn't care or find a particular data field relevant for their use that's fine. However, why deny another user, that does find that information to be particularly useful, that option?

Quoting Flåklypa:

Quote:
clamshell, jewel, snapper and drawer so spesial? (I don't have any of those) Do they all have a massive number of collectors ?

I think you got it the wrong way around. They were not included because they were "special" but because they used to be common in the beginning of DVDs. Afaik none of them are used anymore but they are still around in people's collections.

My point is, we have Custom for anything that's "special" and only if it's common enough it should be included as an option, such as Steelbooks. But I've never even heard of the other types you mentioned.

Quoting rdodolak:

Quote:

But a database is only as good as the data it contains.

That's why it is important to keep the database simple, this way eliminating errors and superfluous data.

Quote:
We all have to realize that not all of the data will be used by all users but it does get used by some of the users so it does serve a purpose.

We all have to realise that DVDProfiler is such a powerful tool that it has an almost unlimited capability of being customised to match the needs of those "some". A database that tries to be "Everybodies Darling" will become useless for the mass of its users, simply because the mass of required differentiations, exceptions and complications will make it nearly impossible for a single user (which in the end every contributor is) to fill the database with life (i.e. correct data).

Quote:
If a specific user doesn't care or find a particular data field relevant for their use that's fine. However, why deny another user, that does find that information to be particularly useful, that option?

In fact it's exactly the other way round.
If a specific user finds it to be particularly useful to have finer differentiations within his/her data that's fine.
But why force this upon those that don't?

Mind you,
I'm not against necessary additions, differentiations, refinements.
But I seriously doubt that the differentiation between SteelBook and MetalCase belongs into this category. At least until we get the ability to enter all the other variations too.

Or in other words:
Those that find it so immensely important to have the ability to track down any possible packaging variant should have opted for "Other" in the original poll and then have named "Free Text Field" as wish (and even though this is not my top-priority I would have full-heartedly supported this). Strangely I didn't see this happen.