Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I tried changing my mind once...

Let mee gess.  You tradcd it wiht a 7 yers old kidd.  Lord nows your argu like one.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Yeah, and created a hell of a lot of extra work by forcing us to duplicate several entries for every damn episode!  If you have six regulars and 20 episodes that means 120 EXTRA entries for that season. REAL IMPROVEMENT GUYS!

NOT!   

Coming back to this thread, it's nice to finally see some sense around here (though not by all ) and see people change their vote to the only rational option: "list all cast within the dividers".

It's pretty obvious to me that the voters for option 1 have never done any work on TV sets cast - for example for Tom Gaines' project. A look at the list of contributors there is a good hint who has some experience in this field. Especially the option 1 loudmouths like Rifter are nowhere to be found in the list...

Just to summarize the arguments for option 2:

1. Option 2 ist the much simpler solution: no exceptions, no discussions, no pingponging about who is regular cast and who is not. There are way too many variants in TV credits to make up a rule for regular cast (if every show had opening credits and if they wouldn't change within a single season, I'd vote for option 1, but this is not the case - not even nearly)

2. The argument that more work is necessary for option 2 is pure nonsense. Yes, if you are dumb enough to write the data into a text file or directly into the profile you are right - but then you deserve the additional work. Using Tom's superb "Cast&Crew Editor", handling regular cast is a peace of cake. You edit one episode, save the result and change only the non regular cast for the next one.

3. It gets even better for lazybones: For many series you don't have to do anything - the work has already been done in Tom's project. The data ist all there, and guess what: it is formatted for option 2. If it was decided to use this option, you'd simply have to dump the data into your profiles- not an ounce of extra work needed. So don't let some users tell you option 2 would mean more work when it's actually less.

Double post

I don't if I already said it here. When I started my TV Cast & Crew project, I had planned to list the regular cast in an extra file. But we came fast to realize that this brings a lot of problems, which doing it "as credited" for each episode does not.

And when you see, that also other people, who now started to try profiling season data for Profiler 3 come to the same conclusion, you see, that here experience with TV cast & crew data is talking.

Quoting TigiHof:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Yeah, and created a hell of a lot of extra work by forcing us to duplicate several entries for every damn episode!  If you have six regulars and 20 episodes that means 120 EXTRA entries for that season. REAL IMPROVEMENT GUYS!

NOT!   

Coming back to this thread, it's nice to finally see some sense around here (though not by all ) and see people change their vote to the only rational option: "list all cast within the dividers".

It's pretty obvious to me that the voters for option 1 have never done any work on TV sets cast - for example for Tom Gaines' project. A look at the list of contributors there is a good hint who has some experience in this field. Especially the option 1 loudmouths like Rifter are nowhere to be found in the list...

Oh, really?  Since when am I obligated to use Tom's program?  I paid for Profiler, so that's what I use.  When Profiler provides the means to do episode level cast & crew that's what I'll use.  If that's alright with you, Tigi?  By the way, I didn't call anybody any names, so don't you start.

Quote:
Just to summarize the arguments for option 2:

1. Option 2 ist the much simpler solution: no exceptions, no discussions, no pingponging about who is regular cast and who is not. There are way too many variants in TV credits to make up a rule for regular cast (if every show had opening credits and if they wouldn't change within a single season, I'd vote for option 1, but this is not the case - not even nearly)

2. The argument that more work is necessary for option 2 is pure nonsense. Yes, if you are dumb enough to write the data into a text file or directly into the profile you are right - but then you deserve the additional work. Using Tom's superb "Cast&Crew Editor", handling regular cast is a peace of cake. You edit one episode, save the result and change only the non regular cast for the next one.

3. It gets even better for lazybones: For many series you don't have to do anything - the work has already been done in Tom's project. The data ist all there, and guess what: it is formatted for option 2. If it was decided to use this option, you'd simply have to dump the data into your profiles- not an ounce of extra work needed. So don't let some users tell you option 2 would mean more work when it's actually less.

It's just like they used to say in the Marine Corps:  If you were supposed to have a wife, they'd issue you one in Basic.  If I was supposed to use Tom's program, it would be issued with Profiler when I bought it.  I shouldn't have use some other program just to make certain people happy.

Quoting TomGaines:

Quote:
I don't if I already said it here. When I started my TV Cast & Crew project, I had planned to list the regular cast in an extra file. But we came fast to realize that this brings a lot of problems, which doing it "as credited" for each episode does not.

And when you see, that also other people, who now started to try profiling season data for Profiler 3 come to the same conclusion, you see, that here experience with TV cast & crew data is talking.

Tom, contrary to what some others are implying, I have nothing against you or your program - in fact, I know you've done a hell of a job with it.

That isn't the issue, however.  As I told Tigi, I use Profiler, and don't particularly want to have to use another program.  I can wait until Ken provides true episode level profiles.  My basic objection is that nobody should be forced to rely on another program by some who seem to think their way is the only way.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
so don't do it, do follow it, don't use it.

lock you data and do what you want.

you are not obligated to do anything (except come here every morning for your daily rant it appears)

Not the issue.  I certainly can, and do, lock things locally.  The problem is that I though we were having a discussion, and that it had moved from one point to another, where we should have asked Ken for his input.  That didn't happen though, did it?  What happened is one person changed his vote, said THIS is the right way, and implied that any more discussion was pointless. 

As for my daily rant... well, apparently it's only a rant if you don't agree with me.

If you are talking about when I originally changed my post... I let it know what I experienced and how I came about it... but I never in any way implied that my way is the right way nor did I imply that more discussion was pointless. Since when is giving my opinion and my experience to back it up imply any of that?

I am the one that brought the thread back... first post.. page 10.