Quoting goblinsdoitall:

Quote:
Quoting MicHaeL H.:

Quote:
Well, there should be a default credit-name added in each actor's unique profile obviously.
So you don't have to go searching for the actual real name.
The real name would merely be for "uniqueness" of each actor and additional info for the interested.
So the profile's "search-tag" or however it works should contain both the real name and the credit-name(s).
As, like you said, you'd search by either credit-name or real name, you'd find the matching profiles.
HOWEVER, there will only be one correct profile and no duplicates or any variables like that.

Quoting MicHaeL H.:

Quote:
I mean, the person is the person is the person, you create their profile with their real name
as the form is in the software, only none of them seem to be filled out.
Also the date or just year of birth, then perhaps the name that they are (mostly) credited as, as an artist.
That's both to have it filled out and to find it easily, because when I fill in their full names,
that's how they are shown in the 'Cast Member'-list, which is sometimes too different.

   
So now what? Parse by "Real" name or not?
What you are trying to do now is to weaken your own position. If we parse the "well known" actors by their real name and enter the supporting actors with their credited name, what happens if one of those nasty supporting buggers is getting well known too? Do we have to change the parsing then?

That status usually doesn't really change, it's usually decided in the first couple of years or whatever.
And even if someone's "status" changes, it could be edited with the next best movie that changed it.
Which would be worked on while adding the home-video anyway.
But it doesn't necessarily have to be done in this way with "classes", it was just an idea.


And for which name, I'm not saying two different things.
I mean, identify their profile with their real fixed names, plus adding their credit-name(s) for search-purposes.
As said, the real name would be to distinguish the artists and as an extra for information.
It should obviously be able to be found through the credit-name(s) which can be assigned/integrated.
Or else people would get really frustrated not being able to find it.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Yeah right, James. You can set up your keys any number of different way, Numeric, Alpha, Alpha numeric, etc.etc. etc. All you are doing is convincing me that you have little or no experience in the world of BUSINESS, let alone relational databases. There si not one SINGLE method that will do the job, that is what you don't GET. IF there was only ONE way to do this, James you would be right but you aren't.

Now would you care to explain why I am not allowed to comment without being put down by a bunch of amateurs. You egg me on and egg me on and finally when i have had enough i will bite.

Skip

Wasn't putting you down.  While I don't consider myself an amateur (some idiots have been paying me as a DBA for 15 years now), I just assumed anyone with vast database experience would know that unique keys are hardly a proprietary concept.  Heck, you can't even build a table in Access without it wanting to assign a unique key.  I daresay Ken might even have snuck a couple of unique keys into Profiler.   

What's nice about the current Profiler approach is that I can build all my data locally without ever connecting to the online.  It's a self-contained unit.  However, connecting to the online and it's proprietary data is arguably it's biggest selling point.

It's just a statement of fact that the users are getting more sophisticated and want more from the software than they might have years ago.  We look at something like IMDb with all it's nice linking and wonder why we can't make Profiler do it.  Sure, I can do it all locally, but then I've basically forsaken the online forever.  Maybe not a big punishment for me personally, but so much for the product's biggest selling point if the best we can say to people is do it yourself.  There are any number of software packages out there where you can do it yourself, and I believe that Profiler becomes diminished if it starts competing on that level.

Midnit:

Then you completely missed the point. There is not a single way to set up unique keys, there are NUMEROUS ways to design keys. Why should we adopt the same technique of one of the single most litigious companies on the planet.

Sometimes I really do wonder...<shakes head>

Skip

Quoting MicHaeL H.:

Quote:
Where did this turn into legal-issues actually?

Anyway, I think DJ Doena either gets how it should sork or maybe not.
But at least there was a great example:

Say you have Courteney Cox, or that's what everyone actually calls her most of the time.
While currently in everyone's database who has different movies from over time starring her
might have at least 2 different name-tags floating around.
In her case, her identity-profile would (apparently) become 'Courteney Bass Cox'.
Which would also carry the tags 'Courteney Cox' and 'Courteney Cox Arquette'.
And if necessary even slight variations such as 'Courteney Cox-Arquette'.

So, you see how it would work then?
I mean, you'd search for any of those names and it would always come back to one unique profile.
Which in that case would be 'Couteney Bass Cox', because that is who she is.
And at the same time carrying the available crediting, which could be selected or edited even.
Just in case there is credited with yet another name occasionally.

Michael:

We don't create Profiles for Actors and Crew. And all this nonsense about "correct" name is just that. It reminds me of any number of arguments which could be had, equally nonsensical, what is the correct date? September 12, 1989, 12 September 1989, 9/12/89, etc. Or the correct time? We can in a few limited cases determine, perhaps, a persons "name", but once you get below the well-known actors, this becomes increasingly difficult the further down you go, which is why we use the system as we do, beside that we aren't sending out birthday wishes and christmas cards that I have heard about. But as in the arguments which could be had over date, time and whatever you choose, it all depends on many factors but they are ALL standards, the STANDARD which Profiler uses for its data is the Film Credits and we must be on the right track since many competing databases are beginning to adopt a very similar standard. None of us are in a position to be an intimate of Courtney Cox so we can't KNOW what her preference for name is beyond her film credits and I am not Courtney Cox and i doubt you are as well. All of that is maybe fun, but its relevance to Profiler is negligible, at least until we get to a point where our Credit Lookup Tool is more reliable in its results. It sounds to me like you want to create simply another version of IMDb, why is that necessary since they already exist with all of their inaccuracies.

As for the legal apsect, that is always something that should remain in the back of our mind, it does us no good to do something which could get Invelos into a legal mess and as a result we wind up losing this Program. You being a free user and a new user have no stake in the future of the Program yet, but some of us do have a sizable "stake" and would hate to see thism Program die due to the carelessness of some users who believe that everything is free for the taking, be it intellectual property, copyrighted pictures or wahtever.

Skip

Quoting Kulju:

Quote:

If we just had different databases for movie and Disc details, all this now multiplied work would reduce a lot. That would also ease up the screeners work, and improve a general quality of the profiles to a whole new level, since all users would build, audit and vote for one movie profile on only instead of dozens, maybe even hundreds of duplicates...

I completely agree.

But the issue has been brought up many times. 

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Yeah right, James. You can set up your keys any number of different way, Numeric, Alpha, Alpha numeric, etc.etc. etc. All you are doing is convincing me that you have little or no experience in the world of BUSINESS, let alone relational databases. There si not one SINGLE method that will do the job, that is what you don't GET. IF there was only ONE way to do this, James you would be right but you aren't.

Hmmm.... lots of db's use numeric identifiers. However, if that's a concern, we could use alphanumeric keys. 

You're one of the biggest unfriendly persons I've come across on the internet pavlov.
I'm only trying this software, you have no right to treat me as some freeloader.
If I were, I wouldn't even come here and just find some key or crack or some shiitake mushroom.
Be glad I come here and try to support!

I'm outta here!

Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:

One problem is that the same movie or TV series may have different credits on different DVDs. Maybe particularly in the case of straight to DVD movies, and less for theatre releases.

Exceptions could be handled the old way. But most profiles would benefit of improved quality and quantity of data, because there would be fewer titles to update and more contributors/voters per title.


Another possibility would be "shared profiles" based on the Disc ID. If two profiles share the same Disc ID,
most likely they will contain the same credits (unless documented otherwise).
Maybe this would be easier to implement, because Disc IDs are already in the database, while "movies" are not (the title on the cover does not always identify a movie).

MichaeL:

No need to be offensive. The way I view your posts is some new guy that has come around and wants things done his way, without even trying to understand or even work with the way we have established things. You have now conformed this opinion with your attitude.

Skip