I love most things about DVD Profiler, and for my money it's by far the best cataloging solution on the market.

I understand the benefits of developing a user-generated database of titles, but I also think it easily leads to mistakes, duplicate (and triplicate and quadruplicate!) entries, etc.

I have always wondered why DVD Profiler doesn't tap into existing DVD databases such as amazon. One of the features I love about "Delicious Library" (a Mac app) is that it doesn't rely on users to create new records. You can search by UPC, title, etc., and the application taps into a wide range of online retail sites to find your title (including amazon.co.uk, amazon.fr, adult dvd sites, etc.)

I think that DVD Profiler should still maintained its own independent database, but that it should use online retail resources to do the initial VERIFICATION of a title's UPC and to grab the basic title information.  Users would still be encouraged to edit and refine entries once they're in the database.

I think this would (a) streamline the entry of new titles and (b) cut way down on user error (intentional or not!).

Any reason why this hasn't been done?

Quoting pompel9:

Quote:
If you don't like it, why do you use it anyway? Or do you use it?
The concept with DVD Profiler is to have a user defined DB. I don't see any problem with it.
But I do see a lot of problems with the thing you are suggesting.

Not sure what you mean by "it".  Are you referring to DVD Profiler or Delicious Library?  I said that I DO love DVD Profiler, and it's by far the best solution on the market. So I hope it's clear that I use it, and WHY I use it.

I think the problems with the user-defined database are apparent, based on the number of people in this forum who complain about the bloated and incorrect data in v2.4.

One of the main problems is the lack of attention to detail. It's not uncommon to see half a dozen entries for the same title, with slight variations in the UPC (e.g. one digit is different) because someone didn't pay attention to what they were typing.

The 'amazon' solution would simply help to catch some of these errors.

I agree that it's still up to the users to maintain a clean database, so let's hope that the current group of 3.0 users are inspired by the possibilities of this new, empty, pristine 3.0 database, and make every effort to keep it clean! 

Quoting drewincanada2:

Quote:
One of the main problems is the lack of attention to detail. It's not uncommon to see half a dozen entries for the same title, with slight variations in the UPC (e.g. one digit is different) because someone didn't pay attention to what they were typing.

You are aware that sometimes the exact same movie will be sold with multiple UPCs are you?  That's not to say that there aren't bad ones out there (in the 2.4 database at least).  Some are bad.  But some are also legitimate duplicates.

I don't think building the initial profile from Amazon or any other site will greatly improve our data accuracy.  In fact I'd guess most times the opposite would be true.

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting drewincanada2:

Quote:
One of the main problems is the lack of attention to detail. It's not uncommon to see half a dozen entries for the same title, with slight variations in the UPC (e.g. one digit is different) because someone didn't pay attention to what they were typing.

You are aware that sometimes the exact same movie will be sold with multiple UPCs are you?  That's not to say that there aren't bad ones out there (in the 2.4 database at least).  Some are bad.  But some are also legitimate duplicates.

I don't think building the initial profile from Amazon or any other site will greatly improve our data accuracy.  In fact I'd guess most times the opposite would be true.

To expand some on what Mark said, drew. Multiple UPC's are very common. Many, if not most resellers today use some form of security system and the systems are not compatible with each other. So how  would a distributor make sure that Circuit City gets copies compatible with their syetm, Best Buy theirs and so on, you do it via UPC #. There are three different systems of which I am aware plus for those stores that do not use any system, making a typical total of FOUR possible UPC#'s for a single title.

Skip

Quoting jdwall179:

Quote:
Each variation of a particular UP movie will therefore have the same first 6 UPCs, but the last six will have to be different.

so does this mean that Universal pictures can only release 99,999 films on DVD? (the 6th char being a check digit).

I suppose they could form a new company if they get to that limit..

A little more general info on UPCs.  I don't know who initiated the request/requirement for new UPCs on changed products - the feds or the manufacturers themselves.  In the past, an item would keep the same UPC when the price changed.  Of course, that was very obvious to the consumer.  Then the requirement to change UPCs when the price changed came into being.  This is where the manufacturers could become sneaky.  Instead of changing the price, they could now decrease the size of a product and keep the same price.  In effect, you had a price increase that was not so obvious to the consumer, since most consumers don't pay as close attention to the size of an item as they do the price.

Quoting Squirrel.God:

Quote:
Quoting drewincanada2:

Quote:

One of the main problems is the lack of attention to detail. It's not uncommon to see half a dozen entries for the same title, with slight variations in the UPC (e.g. one digit is different) because someone didn't pay attention to what they were typing.

Now we use the full UPC with the check digit, you'll find that if you try to create a profile with an invalid UPC, DVD Profiler will complain. I haven't tried submitting a bad UPC yet to see if the contribution system complains... Perhaps Ken or Gerri can answer that one



I have tried. It's not posible. Atleast in my region (2) Don't know about the other regions.
Sorry about the bold, but I can't get my text away from the quote.

ah ok. I must have removed that when I quoted. Since I didn't wanna quote all of the post.