Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Mark:

You are missing the point.

No I'm not.

A) I've always kept in mind how valuable this database is.  I've worked for several companies where their biggest asset was their data.  I understand the value that data can have.  Ken’s database is probably far more valuable than the program.  That is why I'd like to see our database be complete, accurate and usable.

B) No one is suggesting doing something completely different as you mention.  We have a good process now.  The question is can we find a better process or improve the one we have?  The goal here is to make the database even more complete, more accurate and more usable.  That's why we have a forum dedicated to the rules.  The purpose is to find problems and find solutions to make things better.

C) This is nothing more than a discussion.  I predict we won't really come up with anything that is a significant improvement over what we already have.  And if that's the case, no harm was done in a little brainstorming.  If we actually do come up with a great idea, we'd pass it along to Ken and it would be his decision on where to go from there.  This is how all improvements are made to this program (those that don’t originate in Ken’s head obviously).  Even the rules operate on this basis.  You thought rules would be better than guidelines.  You pulled some people together to brainstorm and write the rules, then handed them off to Ken for final approval.  Thus we have rules today.

Again, if you don't wish to take part in the brainstorming, then I'm sure your talents could be put to much better use elsewhere.  We're not currently soliciting input on what a dumb idea this is, what we don't understand and why or anything else along those lines.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Skip,
if I were a company licensing the information from Invelos, I'd rather have a database that listed Men In Black as Men In Black, or Mission Impossible 2 as Mission Impossible 2.
Exceptions must be allowed, forcing data into inflexible rules simply creates unusable data.

Very good point, and one I was getting ready to make.  Thanks for beating me to the punch. 

As to Mark's example...I have no problem with an exception that allows for a 'title' where initials, symbols or absolutely nothing is printed on the cover.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
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. 

I saw that one, too.  I guess the NO voters don't have the other "4 Film Favorites" in their collections.

As to the original question, "Abolish the rules in favor of a new system?"  I will vote strongly NO!  Fix or improve them, definitely.  But to abolish them is calling for us to recreate/reinvent the wheel.  If we abolish the rules we return to the anarchy that was prevalent in the old "Guidelines aren't rules" days.

Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:
One thing is sure if the rules are abolish I will not use the database anymore since it'll become completly useless and full of error.

Have you run the Name Variants plugin or used the Credit Lookup tool?  The database has many errors already. It's really quite shocking to see the depths of bad data that has to be fixed still...after 2.5 years of rules. 

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Have you run the Name Variants plugin or used the Credit Lookup tool?  The database has many errors already. It's really quite shocking to see the depths of bad data that has to be fixed still...after 2.5 years of rules. 

No, since I do the work myself for the cast and crew data in my database.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Anyway, I think I'm done with this thread.  I think we're better off dropping it until the new "reputation" system is in place.  Then we can start a new thread that very clearly spells out the problems and the goals.  Maybe with the new system, the next thread can stay on topic a little bit better.

I would hate to see you be done with this thread.  I think you have made some good points.  We have no idea when the new system is going to be implimented, and I would hate for those points to be lost.

Ok, I'll stick around.  But I'm really hoping the new system is brought up soon.  Out of these 11 pages, there's maybe 2 pages of useful, on-topic conversation.

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Mark:

You are missing the point.

No I'm not.

A) I've always kept in mind how valuable this database is.  I've worked for several companies where their biggest asset was their data.  I understand the value that data can have.  Ken’s database is probably far more valuable than the program.  That is why I'd like to see our database be complete, accurate and usable.

B) No one is suggesting doing something completely different as you mention.  We have a good process now.  The question is can we find a better process or improve the one we have?  The goal here is to make the database even more complete, more accurate and more usable.  That's why we have a forum dedicated to the rules.  The purpose is to find problems and find solutions to make things better.

C) This is nothing more than a discussion.  I predict we won't really come up with anything that is a significant improvement over what we already have.  And if that's the case, no harm was done in a little brainstorming.  If we actually do come up with a great idea, we'd pass it along to Ken and it would be his decision on where to go from there.  This is how all improvements are made to this program (those that don’t originate in Ken’s head obviously).  Even the rules operate on this basis.  You thought rules would be better than guidelines.  You pulled some people together to brainstorm and write the rules, then handed them off to Ken for final approval.  Thus we have rules today.

Again, if you don't wish to take part in the brainstorming, then I'm sure your talents could be put to much better use elsewhere.  We're not currently soliciting input on what a dumb idea this is, what we don't understand and why or anything else along those lines.

Ah there is the crux of the discussion, Mark. More correct according to WHOM. more complete according to WHOM and more usable according to WHOM. Fro my POV this has already drastically damaged the usability of the Program, along with the Accuracy and definitely the Completeness.

I am not interested in playing Rule by User Whim, especially when it involves a Rule that was recently changed, but now that it NO LONGER does what they thought that it would, they want to change it AGAIN. I am also not interested in following where some of our friends would have us go, back to the days of the ping-pong and an unstable database. Were I Ken my response would be no response at all, or in short...you got what you wanted now live with it. No I am not sympathetic on this.

There is ALWAYS going to be something that crops up because we do NOT have ANY control over the data. The answer is simple and obvious and everyone here knows exactly what it is.

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:

As to Mark's example...I have no problem with an exception that allows for a 'title' where initials, symbols or absolutely nothing is printed on the cover.

Sounds reasonable, but I am sure there will be some people unhappy with that as well, and endless discussions on what the exceptions should be and how to implement them.

I still think the best solution would be having a Cover Title field and a Screen Title field, and just enter what is there on the Cover and on the Screen.