 |
|
|
|
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... 3 4 5 6 7 ...9  Previous Next
|
|
Group Divider Help |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | I can see the "correct" on both sides of the discussion:
The Martian is trying to enter the data as it should have been, which makes sense, but sadly is incorrect, because it doesn't mirror the data as it is seen on the screen.
Skip would try to enter the data as it is to be seen on screen, which is "correct", but in this case wouldn't make sense.
So the real question in this case (IMHO) is: what do we want?
Do we want the data to mirror the screen credits (within the limitations of this program)?
Or do we want it to mirror the "intentions" of the credits (this too within the limitations of this program)?
The thing is, while in this case it seems to be pretty easy to find out what the intention might have been, there will be other cases where it's not.
So following the Martian's road will lead to a bunch of case by case decisions within this forum, but following Skip's road wouldn't mean that this discussions would not occur.
While personally I'd agree with the Martian's approach, I'm afraid that Skip is correct if we want to move within the limits of our contribution rules.
Probably it's time for Invelos to jump in and say how they would like to see this handled.
Keeeeeeeeen! | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Silence_of_Lambs: Quote:
I can see the "correct" on both sides of the discussion:
The Martian is trying to enter the data as it should have been, which makes sense, but sadly is incorrect, because it doesn't mirror the data as it is seen on the screen.
Skip would try to enter the data as it is to be seen on screen, which is "correct", but in this case wouldn't make sense.
So the real question in this case (IMHO) is: what do we want?
Do we want the data to mirror the screen credits (within the limitations of this program)?
Or do we want it to mirror the "intentions" of the credits (this too within the limitations of this program)?
The thing is, while in this case it seems to be pretty easy to find out what the intention might have been, there will be other cases where it's not.
So following the Martian's road will lead to a bunch of case by case decisions within this forum, but following Skip's road wouldn't mean that this discussions would not occur.
While personally I'd agree with the Martian's approach, I'm afraid that Skip is correct if we want to move within the limits of our contribution rules.
Probably it's time for Invelos to jump in and say how they would like to see this handled.
Keeeeeeeeen! Ken has already weighed in on this and said it is a perfectly acceptable alternative to list it as Pete and Martian have suggested.  What else do you need him to say?!? I don't understand how people can claim it is incorrect when the owner of the program, the one who is in charge of the rules and the one who has the ultimate and final say tells us it is acceptable? You may not like it but the reality is there is someone who doesn't agree with just about every rule we have. EDIT: Here is the link to Tweeters post including a screen cap of the credits. Ken's answer is 2 replies below. While it is not the exact same (what two credits are) it is the same in principal. Per Ken it is an acceptable alternative to add 2015 to the Video Waiters thus creating a new divider titled 2015 - Video Waiters. Again, if Ken tells us we can do it that way that should be good enough. Doesn't mean you have to like it but it is acceptable and not wrong. | | | | Last edited: by lyonsden5 |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lyonsden5: Quote:
Ken has already weighed in on this and said it is a perfectly acceptable alternative to list it as Pete and Martian have suggested. What else do you need him to say?!? The problem is that Ken said BOTH methods are fine. As a result, both are equally valid or invalid, everybody contributes and votes according to their own preference, and the online database ends up an inconsistent mess... No matter which way I go, there will always be profiles where the other method is used, virtually cutting me off from ever contribution any cast corrections or additions to that profile ever again. I'm happy to go either way, as long as we ALL go the same way as far as the online database is concerned. I repeat: we really need the ability to deal with nested dividers, and if we're not about to get that real quick, we need a definitive ruling (not just "either way's fine") on how to deal with it right now. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Sorry, wrong example.
Your example is showing a main group which is subdivided by several new dividers. The problem we have here is a main divider with one subdivision and then an (obvious) jump-back to the main group without any new dividers, except for a probably slightly broader blank., Which according to the clarification of Ken would only allow either a group-end or a blank divider. I cannot see anything where he allowed us to invent new divider titles. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Silence_of_Lambs: Quote:
Sorry, wrong example. In your opinion... I already said is wasn't an exact match. Quote:
Your example is showing a main group which is subdivided by several new dividers. The problem we have here is a main divider with one subdivision and then an (obvious) jump-back to the main group without any new dividers, except for a probably slightly broader blank., Which according to the clarification of Ken would only allow either a group-end or a blank divider. I cannot see anything where he allowed us to invent new divider titles. Ken invented a new divider title (as you call it) when he added 2015 to Video Waiters. As T!M points out Ken has said both ways are acceptable. T!M allso pointed this out after Ken made his statement so you have to believe Ken is aware of the issue and aware of the conflict it creates. Unfortunately that thread, as many do, became locked after going off topic so nothing was ever finalized. Bottom line is both sides are correct. You should not vote no to either way. Personally I like adding the information the way Pete originally suggested based on Ken's post. However if it were submitted the other way I would probably just vote neutral. |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lyonsden5: Quote:
Ken invented a new divider title (as you call it) when he added 2015 to Video Waiters. No he didn't! The "2015" is to be seen on screen in exactly the same position where tweeter put it (right above the "Video Waiters"). In the example of this thread MadMartian suggested this: Quote:
Members of 617 Squadron
Wing Commander Guy Gibson ... Richard Todd
Members of 617 Squadron - His Crew
FLT/LT R. D. Trevor-Roper... Brewster Mason
Etc.
Members of 617 Squadron
The rest of the squadron Which is perfectly sensible, but sadly the title of his third divider doesn't appear on screen. As can be seen here:  So your example isn't only "not exact", it doesn't even come close to this problem. EDIT: So, even though I personally wouldn't object to either way (as said before), because both have their pros and cons, we still have the problem that one approach is rule-conform and the other makes sense. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 | | | | Last edited: by Lewis_Prothero |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Wow, the hostility. Really, there is no need. We obviuosly see it differently.
Let's make sure were are talking about the same thing here. I am not talking about how tweeter set up his example. I am talking about the alternative way Ken said you could do it. It is a similar example. At least the way I see it it is.
You say it's not the same because 2015 is directly above Video Waiters. The credit reads:
2015:
Video Waiters:
blah
blah
Griff Gang:
blah
blah
How do you explain Ken saying it is OK to use "2015 - Griff Gang". It is certainly not directly below 2015. The only difference between the example I point to and the question in this thread is there is an entry under the first divider. Do we really need Ken to clarify each and every example that comes up?
I really don't have the time to spend the morning hashing this out. If you answer and I don't reply don't take it personally. Gotta get back to work. If you still don't see it we'll simply have to agree to disagree. |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lyonsden5: Quote:
Wow, the hostility. Really, there is no need. I apologize if I sounded hostile. Didn't want to. I just wanted to make clear where in my point of view your example significantly differs from the problem in this thread. Quote:
Let's make sure were are talking about the same thing here. I am not talking about how tweeter set up his example. I am talking about the alternative way Ken said you could do it. It is a similar example. At least the way I see it it is.
[...]
How do you explain Ken saying it is OK to use "2015 - Griff Gang". It is certainly not directly below 2015. The only difference between the example I point to and the question in this thread is there is an entry under the first divider. Do we really need Ken to clarify each and every example that comes up? OK, got me.  It's always good to read a post to the end. Ken in fact invented a divider title. Still this doesn't quite match, because in tweeters example there's no jump back to the main group, but merely subdividers of a group. IMHO Ken's clarification doesn't really solve this, and since we ("we" is in this case the users of this forum), can't seem to decide on how to handle this, yes, I think we need Ken to clarify this example. Not for each and every example, but for those where can't decide, I'd always prefer a word from Invelos to 6 pages of back and forth. Quote:
If you still don't see it we'll simply have to agree to disagree. Depends on what you mean here. We seem to agree that the Martian's approach is to be preferred (in my case with the minor confinement that it's not necessarily rule-compatible). The only thing that I can see where we might disagree is, whether we need a clarification from Ken for this, or not. But even if we couldn't agree on this, we'd have to ask ourselves, what harm would be done if Ken weighed in? | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting the Rules: Quote:
Dividers
Dividers allow the segregation of cast and crew into logical groupings. Wherever possible, these groupings should mirror the film credits. Bolding by me. The rule clearly leaves an out for entering the divider information differently than the way they appear in the actual film credits. Since nested group dividers are the only way that the actual film dividers would make sense, and we cannot enter nested dividers due to a program limitation, then the only way to enter them into DVDP in a way that actually communicates the meaning of the dividers is as suggested by Pete and the Martian. Per the Rules, since it is not possible to enter them in DVDP in a way that makes sense, we can enter them other than as they appear in the actual film credits. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lyonsden5: Quote:
EDIT: Here is the link to Tweeters post including a screen cap of the credits. Ken's answer is 2 replies below. While it is not the exact same (what two credits are) it is the same in principal. Per Ken it is an acceptable alternative to add 2015 to the Video Waiters thus creating a new divider titled 2015 - Video Waiters.
Again, if Ken tells us we can do it that way that should be good enough. Doesn't mean you have to like it but it is acceptable and not wrong. Is there any chance of quoting this for us normals and maybe adding it to the pinned "collected statements from Invelos" thread? Edit: excellent point Hal! | | | | Last edited: by northbloke |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting the Rules:
Quote:
Dividers
Dividers allow the segregation of cast and crew into logical groupings. Wherever possible, these groupings should mirror the film credits.
Bolding by me. As Kathy said in another thread: Don't confuse me with facts! Excellent point Hal! | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:
Quote:
EDIT: Here is the link to Tweeters post including a screen cap of the credits. Ken's answer is 2 replies below. While it is not the exact same (what two credits are) it is the same in principal. Per Ken it is an acceptable alternative to add 2015 to the Video Waiters thus creating a new divider titled 2015 - Video Waiters.
Again, if Ken tells us we can do it that way that should be good enough. Doesn't mean you have to like it but it is acceptable and not wrong.
Is there any chance of quoting this for us normals and maybe adding it to the pinned "collected statements from Invelos" thread?
Edit: excellent point Hal! Sorry. Didn't realize it was in a closed forum.  The picture:  Ken's Comment (bold by me ans is the part i was pointing out): Quote:
This could be entered as tweeter has it. Arguably, the inner heading is more important, and that's the one that would show in the credit info window.
Alternatively, this could be entered as "2015 - Video Waiters" , "2015 - Griff Gang", "2015" and "1985" for the dividers. @ Silence - we're good.  and no, I don't have a problem with Ken weighing in at all. I think he's hiding though since he knows he created a could be this or could be that situation.  @ Hal - good timing on your return.  |
| | Registered: August 23, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,656 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hal wins. | | | Reviewer, HorrorTalk.com
"I also refuse to document CLT results and I pay my bills to avoid going to court." - Sam, keeping it real, yo. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
The Martian had it closer agree to disagree. But given that I answered his comments and he has not answered mine, that only further convinces me that I AM RIGHT, he simply has no argument to present, and i have countered his whether he likes it or not.
Just so there is no mistake, I haven't answered your comments because I don't feel like going around in circles with you. You haven't 'countered mine', you just offered a different opinion supported by nothing other that "because I say so." I am sorry, but that is a fact. Incorrect Martian. I DID counter your argument I gave a very detailed explanation why you were not looking at subdividers, in addititon I explained that yours was based upon WORDS and LANGUAGE., which is NOT provided for within the Rule. No you jhad no argument at all, you countered niothing that i said except to repeat that it was based on words and language. It's outside of the Rules, plain and simple, they do NOT provide for your wish to create a subdivider out of whole cloth based on words and language and you have not shown me in the Rules where you believe it does. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting the Rules:
Quote:
Dividers
Dividers allow the segregation of cast and crew into logical groupings. Wherever possible, these groupings should mirror the film credits.
Bolding by me.
The rule clearly leaves an out for entering the divider information differently than the way they appear in the actual film credits.
Since nested group dividers are the only way that the actual film dividers would make sense, and we cannot enter nested dividers due to a program limitation, then the only way to enter them into DVDP in a way that actually communicates the meaning of the dividers is as suggested by Pete and the Martian.
Per the Rules, since it is not possible to enter them in DVDP in a way that makes sense, we can enter them other than as they appear in the actual film credits. Hal losses, but he made a nice try. The problem Hal, is that there is NOTHING presented on Screen visually that indicates these are ANYTHING other than two dividers, the only way to make such a CLAIM is though the use of the Words and the language and that is not allowed per rule, not dis allowed either, but all the data indicates is TWO dividers, there is no offset of the two, there is no distinction between the two other than words. Does that mean Hobbits Orcs Are Orcs a subset of Hobbits Zabars Shoppers Shoppers Starbuck's Shoppers Are these subsets, they certainly based upon the arguments here and we have quite a number of users who seem to believe that they are all-knowing in the language department and can mystically use language to determine what is or is not a divider. But the fact is other than those words and language which our Word Gods are so good at, there is no evidence visually in the data that they are anything other than TWO dividers and the Rules do NOT grant us the use of Words and language as delineator, and if that IS allowed then it becomes a total mess because there are numerous such possibilities in Hollywood which are subject to only a users interpretation or PREFERENCE as to what it is. Once again simply follow the data, it's much easier. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Incorrect Martian. I DID counter your argument I gave a very detailed explanation why you were not looking at subdividers, in addititon I explained that yours was based upon WORDS and LANGUAGE., which is NOT provided for within the Rule. Actually, it was North and myself who pointed out that our argument was based upon words. All you did, was claim the rules do not provide for that. Quote:
No you jhad no argument at all, you countered niothing that i said except to repeat that it was based on words and language. It's outside of the Rules, plain and simple, they do NOT provide for your wish to create a subdivider out of whole cloth based on words and language and you have not shown me in the Rules where you believe it does. You keep making claims about rules, yet fail to provide the rule that supports your claim. Once again, if you can't point me to the rule that supports your position, please stop responding to my posts. | | | 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 |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6 7 ...9 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |