 |
|
|
|
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... 5 6 7 8 9 ...11  Previous Next
|
|
Middle name |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Most contributors i am aware of in Contributions are on the same page, right now. (...) Maybe you are right that most contributors that you are aware of are on the same page. But how many users are you aware of? That depends largely on your own DVD collection and your awareness to contributions. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | You might be surpised, Rho just how aware I am. I will tell yo7u what i have said before, what you do affects EVERYONE else in the world-wide community. You can and u suspect probably have caused some problems in the database, this simply based on your attitude.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Most contributors i am aware of in Contributions are on the same page, right now. (...)
Maybe you are right that most contributors that you are aware of are on the same page. But how many users are you aware of? That depends largely on your own DVD collection and your awareness to contributions. If we are so wrong about "most" users following the A/B/C/ convention and you are right that "most" users do not follow that convention, why is it that virtually all contributions are in the A/B/C form if the name is in three parts -- and contributions are seldom made using a A B//C or A//B C form? I admit my view is anecdotally based, but I see very few contributions where anything other than A/B/C is used. What intrigues me even more is why you persist in flogging this dead horse? | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,029 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
What intrigues me even more is why you persist in flogging this dead horse? I'm pretty sure if skipnet50 wouldn't continue to make his claims, RHo wouldn't feel compelled to point out their obvious flaws. | | | | Matthias |
| | Registered: May 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,033 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goodguy: Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:
Quote:
What intrigues me even more is why you persist in flogging this dead horse?
I'm pretty sure if skipnet50 wouldn't continue to make his claims, RHo wouldn't feel compelled to point out their obvious flaws. If his argument's flaws are obvious than why is it necessary to point them out? -Agrare |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,029 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Agrare: Quote:
If his argument's flaws are obvious than why is it necessary to point them out? First, I didn't speak of arguments, I spoke of claims. Second, the flaws seem not to be obvious to skipnet50 himself. Anyway, since I'm not RHo, I bow out of it now. | | | | Matthias |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Unfortunately, Rho seems to believe his opinion trumps all. I find Rho's logic to be severely flawed in all respects. So what's the point?
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goodguy: Quote:
Quoting Agrare:
Quote:
If his argument's flaws are obvious than why is it necessary to point them out?
First, I didn't speak of arguments, I spoke of claims. Second, the flaws seem not to be obvious to skipnet50 himself. Anyway, since I'm not RHo, I bow out of it now. You seem awfully concerned about semantics. What are to you claims are to others of us arguments. And frankly the "flaws" aren't all that obvious to me, either. All I see is people taking whatever opportunity they can avail themselves of to take shots at other people. In this case it's RHo shooting at Skip. Sometimes it's been Skip shooting at someone else. I still haven't gotten any answer as to why people persist in making a big deal about how a name is parsed. WHO CARES? What's the big deal? It's very simple to look at a three part name, find three name fields, and put one part in each. What's so hard about that -- and why do people act as if they are being insulted when we suggest they do it that way? With all the important things to worry about with making contributions to the database, why are we wasting time on this? Here's my suggestion. The first time a name is contributed (cast or crew) the contributor gets a pass on how he parses it. He can do it A/B/C, AB//C, A//BC, whatever -- and needn't document how he did it. If someone thinks the original submission is wrong and wants to change it, then he has to document why it should be changed. The only time I might question an original parsing is for a name with an initial and a second name (like J. Edgar Hoover). I think it could be "corrected" from J. Edgar//Hoover to J./Edgar/Hoover without documentation. But I don't feel strongly about that. | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
If we are so wrong about "most" users following the A/B/C/ convention and you are right that "most" users do not follow that convention, why is it that virtually all contributions are in the A/B/C form if the name is in three parts -- and contributions are seldom made using a A B//C or A//B C form? Maybe when we see a credit in the form A B C, B is most often a middle name. But this does not automatically mean that people also enter B into the middle name field, when they see that in a specific case B is most probably part of the last name. I'm nowhere arguing that B should be entered into the last name field by default. On the contrary we should enter B into that field that we honestly think is the correct one (matching the field label). If the initial contributor of a credit is proved wrong, then everybody is invited to correct that credit with documentation. And in my experience that is exactly what people do. They do neither enter B into the middle name field nor document why they enter B into the last name field, when they are convinced that B is part of a double barrelled last name. They simply enter B into the last name field. And most often in those rare cases it is accepted into the online database without any problem. | | | | Last edited: by RHo |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
In this case it's RHo shooting at Skip. Could you show me where I have shot at skipnet50, please? I am convinced that I am not shooting at anyone personally. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
I still haven't gotten any answer as to why people persist in making a big deal about how a name is parsed. WHO CARES? What's the big deal? I'm just guessing here, but, I think the big deal is all about linking. Unless everyone agrees how to parse a given name, it will wind up being contributed in one profile as A/B/C per Skip's method, and as A/B C or A B/C per RHo's suspicions. Both of those profiles will not show up by clicking on either version. Then we'll have another big battle over which version should be the "common name". It will be one way one day depending on which method was used most often, but could change the next day if the other method overtakes in the CLT. Purely from a consistency standpoint, I support the word counting method unless it can be documented to be wrong. "Guessing" in my book is simply unacceptable because it relies on individual interpretations and personal experience as opposed to simple math; e.g. 1, 2, 3. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Then we'll have another big battle over which version should be the "common name". It will be one way one day depending on which method was used most often, but could change the next day if the other method overtakes in the CLT. The credit lookup tool is not sensitive to parsing. A/B/C and A//B C is the same for the CLT. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,329 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Purely from a consistency standpoint, I support the word counting method unless it can be documented to be wrong. "Guessing" in my book is simply unacceptable because it relies on individual interpretations and personal experience as opposed to simple math; e.g. 1, 2, 3. This is my opinion as well. Thanks for putting it into words better then I could Hal.  | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Then we'll have another big battle over which version should be the "common name". It will be one way one day depending on which method was used most often, but could change the next day if the other method overtakes in the CLT.
The credit lookup tool is not sensitive to parsing. A/B/C and A//B C is the same for the CLT. Which makes this whole argument that much more inane. Note, I am not calling you inane. I am speaking about the discussion in general. If it has no effect on how the data is used, why are we fighting about it?  Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Purely from a consistency standpoint, I support the word counting method unless it can be documented to be wrong. "Guessing" in my book is simply unacceptable because it relies on individual interpretations and personal experience as opposed to simple math; e.g. 1, 2, 3.
This is my opinion as well. Thanks for putting it into words better then I could Hal. I agree as well. The simplest method, at least to me, is the best. Whether you want to call them words, or names, the counting method is the simplest. 3 names, 3 name fields, 1 name in each field. 4 names, 3 name fields, the first name goes in the 'first name' field...the last name goes in the 'last name' field...every name that is in the middle, of the first and last, goes into the 'middle name' field. Quite easy for everyone to understand and do...at least in my opinion. I also agree with T!M. A starting point, any starting point, should be written into the rules. | | | 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 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
The credit lookup tool is not sensitive to parsing. A/B/C and A//B C is the same for the CLT.
If it has no effect on how the data is used, why are we fighting about it? You may be right, but then I have not brought word counting into the discussion.  On the other hand: while the CLT is not sensitive to parsing, name linking is. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quite easy for everyone to understand and do...at least in my opinion. Easy to do: yes of course. But IMO word counting is not easy to understand. Specially when the rules explicitly prohibit word counting in some other cases. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 5 6 7 8 9 ...11 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |