 |
|
|
|
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->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1 2  Previous Next
|
|
Evolution of dvdprofiler |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Our favorite program could evolve in two main direction:
1/ More contributable fields : more crew roles, headshots, photo galleries, technical specs (audio)
- advantages: all the work of everybody may benefit to all users, a paradise for those for whom contribution is a hobby.
- inconvenients: more complex rules, non coherent data, incomplete profiles, with a risk of discouraging average contributors
2/ Limitation of contributable fields with more customizable features for local use, simplification of rules.
- advantages: easier to reach a complete, definitive and accurate database, especially if all not strictly necessary data are removed.
- inconvenients: for non contributable features that interest many people, everyone must make the job.
Note that the second solution doesn't mean that new features cannot be added. For example, technical data that came with HD must be considered. That solution would also not make people loose their already existing data. They just become local and non contributable. Examples : italic and bold in overviews, sound and art credits, all genres, CoO (but with more fields for local use), uncredited cast (?)...
Of course, a mix of those extremes will probably be the right choice. But this is to allow each of us to express his own opinion, Ken being after all the only one to decide. | | | | Images from movies |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'll take both options. But I want as much data available as possible, I am not interested in, this is the extreme to be sure, but a list of titles and UPC #s, with everything else provided completely by ME. It is much easier when we share the load. Based on your comment surfeur, you want it easy, with the Features YOU deem important, since you mentioned "the second solution doesn't mean that new features cannot be added. For example, technical data that came with HD must be considered."
Sorry, my friend, you totally misunderstand the function of the Online and the local and the two relate to each other and always have. If you want it more customizable then everything is customized by EVERY user to his wishes with the only data provided being Title and UPC/EAN, not even covers.
Sharing the load is good, and then each user can decide for himself which data HE/SHE wants and in what form, but the data is there for you to play with as you wish or NOT. That is and always has been the best answer. Anything would take away from the DVDProfiler being the great program that it is, it is only dependent on everyone understanding that it is a collaborative effort, and each user can also decide exactly what he/she wishes to Contribute as long as that data conforms to the Rules and is accurate to the Rules.
Skip<shakes head> | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr Pavlov: Quote:
... snip ...
Based on your comment surfeur, you want it easy, with the Features YOU deem important
... snip...
Of course he does. Have you for a split second considered what the opposite would be: wanting it hard with only features he does NOT deem important? Of course he wants it easy with the features he deem important - so do I and every other sane user here. That does obliviously not mean we can't accept that we can't all get it the way we prefer and compromises needs to be made. And obviously there is nothing wrong in people indicating what their preferences are (even if it is not the current way things are done). How is Ken going to get the solution that fits the best if people do not say what they want? | | | Regards
Lars |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | From my point of view, Invelos should limit contributable fields to those that are indisputable/non-controversial and can be easily proven by reviewing the DVD case, DVD menus, DVD credits and a few DVD tools to determine things like run time and audio/video attributes.
Any field that involves user interpretation should be local only. This would eliminate the ping-ponging and incessant arguments that are endless on this site. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
From my point of view, Invelos should limit contributable fields to those that are indisputable/non-controversial and can be easily proven by reviewing the DVD case, DVD menus, DVD credits and a few DVD tools to determine things like run time and audio/video attributes.
Any field that involves user interpretation should be local only. This would eliminate the ping-ponging and incessant arguments that are endless on this site. I agree 1000% with this hal  We should not overcomplicate stuff with threads that will go on for 10 pages over arguments how some rules can be interpreted. We have more than enough fields to contribute. Of coutrse if a new medium requires an addition, it should be made :D We really have everything that is important for a film right now in Profiler, that's enough imho cheers Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 485 |
| | Posted: | | | | Great question by surfeur. Excellent comments by Lars and Hal. Here are my thoughts. First, a number of fields were added due to features in competing programs. If I remember well, that's how thumbnails as collection list was added. This sort of market pressure will always remain. Then again, in another part of these fora a vote thread also indicates the expansion of crew (in particular) seem to have gone too far, according to many members. Personally I think the greatest direction problem is caused by its duality. Meaning: it is a DVD collection profiler, but the structure is highly focused on a MOVIE collection profiler. There have been numerous threads on additional features for all other things found on DVD. As far as customisable fields go, the current tag system is limited. The new (3.5) concept of local extensions to some list fields like genre, is already a nice opportunity for localisation. The dividers in cast and crew and the nested profiles go some way to address the need for TV series, multiple movies on 1 disc, and so on. But it is more like a flat file workaround rather than a properly structured solution. Likewise, in TV DVD's and music DVD's we list episodes and music numbers respectively in the overview, again flat file rather than a structured solution. So, to round up, really reducing the number of fields may be unattainable due to market competition. But simplefications, better structure in some departments, are certainly ways to go forward. May the force be with Ken  | | | Eric
If it is important, say it. Otherwise, let silence speak. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
From my point of view, Invelos should limit contributable fields to those that are indisputable/non-controversial and can be easily proven by reviewing the DVD case, DVD menus, DVD credits and a few DVD tools to determine things like run time and audio/video attributes.
Any field that involves user interpretation should be local only. This would eliminate the ping-ponging and incessant arguments that are endless on this site. No kidding, that is exactly one of the reasons why the Rules were born to begin with, hal. Cast data is not open to user, interpretation if they follow the data that is On-Screen and the other varieties of silliness that people bring up merely to bring an element of chaos to picture. The crew data is the biggest problem, though not a concern to me, and that could be corrected with Full Open Credits and we list what we see, though I still don't like the nightmare issues which accompany them. More data allowing us to track the Bonus Features would also be easy to do. Again, as I saild before it is a huge collaborative effort. Hal, you also mentioned data which cannot be questioned, there is NO such thing, data which cannot be interpreted differently, again there is no such thing that has been proven time and time again by some users in this group. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,195 |
| | Posted: | | | | Separation of disc and movie data would be the way to go. The system is barely workable right now with hundreds of profiles for the same movie that are not interlinked which means one person's hard work gets very limited distribution and corrections don't get propagated, making the CLT highly inaccurate etc. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 | | | | Last edited: by Nexus the Sixth |
|  | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree, it's a clusterf*** at present. Far, far too many arguments!!!!!
Separating disc data and movie data into different areas of the display would help.
As I suggested a couple of years ago, "open credits" is the only way to solve the bulk of these silly problems. Just enter what you see as you see it on the screen.
Genre's - one field contributed - the rest private open fields so we can do with them what we want.
Audio/Video - per the discussion we agreed on about two weeks ago. To be honest, I was surprised we came to a consensus so quickly on that one. | | | | Dan | | | | Last edited: by Dan W |
| | Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
Genre's - one field contributed - the rest private open fields so we can do with them what we want.
I can see that starting more arguments. From the topic about "Aliens" a while back people couldn't agree if it was primarily a Sci-Fi movie or Horror. I'm sure the same would apply to many other films. If you want to reduce it then I think the best way is to completely remove genre and leave it 100% down to the individual. |
| | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Forget_the_Rest: Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Genre's - one field contributed - the rest private open fields so we can do with them what we want.
I can see that starting more arguments. From the topic about "Aliens" a while back people couldn't agree if it was primarily a Sci-Fi movie or Horror. I'm sure the same would apply to many other films.
If you want to reduce it then I think the best way is to completely remove genre and leave it 100% down to the individual. One field or ten, that will still happen. The problem with going to all private is that Ken wants genre as a contributed field. That means we are stuck with a few disagreements. There will be fewer with one than with many. As it is now, I see so many genre changes (ping\pong) that I can't accept any profiles without sifting through them individually. So, I feel one field contributed and the rest open and private is the only solution. Of course, I would like to have a "universal" lock on the genre field(s) so I can block all changes to this catastrophe of a field. | | | | Dan |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
As I suggested a couple of years ago, "open credits" is the only way to solve the bulk of these silly problems. Just enter what you see as you see it on the screen. Once again this ridiculous statement appear  Sorry but some people are able to deal with the "credited as" feature for linking the role of actors/actresses with multiple alias. Why do you think I've never bought the version 2 of this program? Exactly the complete mess and complete unusefullness of the cast list... Glad to see that I can do it correctly for myself when I read a comment like that who ask a return to a faulty version 2 way... |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting AESP_pres: Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
As I suggested a couple of years ago, "open credits" is the only way to solve the bulk of these silly problems. Just enter what you see as you see it on the screen.
Once again this ridiculous statement appear
Sorry but some people are able to deal with the "credited as" feature for linking the role of actors/actresses with multiple alias. Why do you think I've never bought the version 2 of this program? Exactly the complete mess and complete unusefullness of the cast list...
Glad to see that I can do it correctly for myself when I read a comment like that who ask a return to a faulty version 2 way... Actually, I think he's referring to crew credits as opposed to cast credits. Entering cast credits "exactly as credited" would also work if the proper linking system were to be implemented. | | | | Hal |
| | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting AESP_pres:
Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
As I suggested a couple of years ago, "open credits" is the only way to solve the bulk of these silly problems. Just enter what you see as you see it on the screen.
Once again this ridiculous statement appear
Sorry but some people are able to deal with the "credited as" feature for linking the role of actors/actresses with multiple alias. Why do you think I've never bought the version 2 of this program? Exactly the complete mess and complete unusefullness of the cast list...
Glad to see that I can do it correctly for myself when I read a comment like that who ask a return to a faulty version 2 way...
Actually, I think he's referring to crew credits as opposed to cast credits.
Entering cast credits "exactly as credited" would also work if the proper linking system were to be implemented. Yes I was Hal. Thanks for spelling it out for those who missed the painfully obvious. | | | | Dan |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think what could be done very easily and will NOT confuse any user, is to add some more boxes to tick with special features.
For example:
Introduction
Booklet
BD-Live
PiP
But those are only minor corrections.
I also totally agree that profiles of the same film should be linked, cast and crew wise.
The CAST and CREW will be always the same, as they come from the credits.
Would also ease contributions a lot.
If a contribution to a Region1 release is done, you will have all the other regions and Blu-ray
done too.
Much less work, much more accuracy.
greetings
Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
| | Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting DarklyNoon: Quote:
I also totally agree that profiles of the same film should be linked, cast and crew wise.
I'm against that for the following reasons - Different versions of the same film may not have the same credits. For example the Star Wars special edition Vs the original release of the films. Or Directors cuts Vs standard editions. In both cases they can relate to the same film but still have subtle differences to the credits.Different localities can have different credits for dubbing & the like.Who decides which films to link?If you submit a change for cast/crew on a profile, who gets to vote, only the people with that specific release or everyone with that title.While I agree that linking that sort of info would be a good idea in theory, I think in practice it would be too hard to implement. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |