Quoting BYATES1:

Quote:
The only conclusion I can draw here is that we (myself included) are all selfish and or too lazy to use the local and locking features Ken has provided for us.

That's not the way I look at it. The way I approach these profiles is compiling data that most users would find useful.
As an example, I may be wrong, but I would have thought that most users would prefer "Men In Black" as the title over "MIB". This allows search by title to work properly. That is also why I'm ambivalent about the Star Wars change. We may have lost "Episode", but the important stuff: "Star Wars"; "Attack of the Clones" is still there and therefore still useful.

I will offer this to you. Have any of you considered the prospect of Invelos' generating money by licensing the use of the data in the database. And were you a business interested in such a proposition would you want data based on the whims and vagaries of user preferences or...would you want data that reflected not only a solid YARDSTICK a la the film credits. Furthermore would you not want data such as common name DOCUMENTED as ina bibliography, as opposed to well it's a similar name, therefore they must be the same person...NOT.

Further, if you were sucjh a business, how would you feel about the yardstick for the data being constantly moved around based on the whims of the users who want to manipulate the database.

Skip

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting BYATES1:

Quote:
The only conclusion I can draw here is that we (myself included) are all selfish and or too lazy to use the local and locking features Ken has provided for us.

That's not the way I look at it. The way I approach these profiles is compiling data that most users would find useful.
As an example, I may be wrong, but I would have thought that most users would prefer "Men In Black" as the title over "MIB". This allows search by title to work properly. That is also why I'm ambivalent about the Star Wars change. We may have lost "Episode", but the important stuff: "Star Wars"; "Attack of the Clones" is still there and therefore still useful.

I might have misinterpreted you post making my reply an incredibly stupid response so I apologize in advance.

I somewhat agree with the search tool argument. I guess I could say that I never add a DVD by title because the database has too many versions of some movies like say Spiderman. I use the UPC. I can't object to any title for Men in Black because I feel Ken should do as he best see's fit although I do not like MIB as a title for sorting personally but I should only offer opinion. Anything beyond this would be unneeded flaming.

Again sorry if I misunderstood and thanks for the constructive feedback.

James:

YOU were one who wanted the Title Rule changed and now you don't like it. You know what my response is, stop trying to move the yardstick.

Skip

Did anybody want this change?  As I said earlier, it passed in the old rules forum by a vote of 15-1 AND was included in the proposed rule changes that we gave to Ken.  Add to that the fact that many people asked for this several years ago and I am, oh so, 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Did anybody want this change?  As I said earlier, it passed in the old rules forum by a vote of 15-1 AND was included in the proposed rule changes that we gave to Ken.  Add to that the fact that many people asked for this several years ago and I am, oh so, 

I have openly admitted to wanting the title from the front cover... and I remain in that opinion... even with some obvious flaws.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
YOU were one who wanted the Title Rule changed and now you don't like it. You know what my response is, stop trying to move the yardstick.

Skip,

You're missing the whole point of this thread.  It's not about the recent changes made to the rules or Star Wars or anything else in particular.

As I understand things (correct me if I'm wrong chibul), the intention was to take a good look at the system we have today and see if there are other options to improve upon it without creating or changing even more rules.  Is there a system that would work better than the rules?  Or are there other methods we can use with the rules to improve things.  We've come a long way since the rules were introduced and Ken has given us many helpful tools we didn't have back then.

The goal is to get a good database built.  As James pointed out, this is a very good thing for new users.  I recently wanted to add Mission Impossible 2 to my wishlist and it took a bit of effort to track it down.  I had to look it up at Amazon and see that the cover had M:I-2 on it before I was ever able to find it in our database.  This should not have happened.  As an experienced user, I knew that it was out there somewhere and I just wasn't looking it up correctly.  But if I were a new user, I would have been lost.  I think we do have a good database.  In fact, I think it's great.  But there's still room for improvement.

I don't see what's so wrong with having an open and honest discussion on this topic.  If you have something to add on this topic, then please let us know.  But we're not interested in arguing about Ken's rule change and what you think we do or don't want.  Nor have we been interested in that topic the last 10 times you've brought it up.  So if you don't have anything constructive to add to this discussion, then please go share your wisdom elsewhere so we can have this discussion.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Did anybody want this change?  As I said earlier, it passed in the old rules forum by a vote of 15-1 AND was included in the proposed rule changes that we gave to Ken.  Add to that the fact that many people asked for this several years ago and I am, oh so, 

I went back and checked and (14-1 but who's quibbling... ) and I do see that I posted at that time in favor of the front cover. HOWEVER    that was 2 years ago exactly, Nov. 2005. At that time, it was about 4 months into the current rules calling for the title to come from the film credits.

Now that we are 2.5 years into taking the title from the film credits, I preferred to keep it that way. I would have no problem with a new title field for DVD Title, but I didn't want to repurpose the Title field from Credited Title to DVD Title.

Our titles are now of mixed sources. But now that it's done, it's done. We move on.

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
As I understand things (correct me if I'm wrong chibul), the intention was to take a good look at the system we have today and see if there are other options to improve upon it without creating or changing even more rules.  Is there a system that would work better than the rules?  Or are there other methods we can use with the rules to improve things.  We've come a long way since the rules were introduced and Ken has given us many helpful tools we didn't have back then.

Yes, I agree. The rules are borne out of a frustration with an era when contributions were blindly submitted. We're miles away from that point now. It could be that there's a different way to handle contributions with all of the hands-on attention we give them now.

Quote:
The goal is to get a good database built.  As James pointed out, this is a very good thing for new users.  I recently wanted to add Mission Impossible 2 to my wishlist and it took a bit of effort to track it down.  I had to look it up at Amazon and see that the cover had M:I-2 on it before I was ever able to find it in our database.  This should not have happened.  As an experienced user, I knew that it was out there somewhere and I just wasn't looking it up correctly.  But if I were a new user, I would have been lost.  I think we do have a good database.  In fact, I think it's great.  But there's still room for improvement.

I've often had to go to some place like DVD Empire to grab a UPC to find a title in DVD Profiler for my Wish List. Warner just put out a series called "4 Film Favorites". Most of them were input as, for example, "4 Film Favorites: Horror", but one of the sets was input using the titles from all 4 films with "4 Film Favorites" as the Edition. Someone tried to update that one to match the others but -- last time I checked -- they collected a bunch of 'no' votes. So now we have one set one way and several sets the other way.