 |
|
|
|
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 2 3 4  Previous Next
|
|
Using the CLT (profile count vs. title count) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,245 |
| | Posted: | | | | So are you saying that someone like Patrick Stewart should only be counted as appearing in 7 seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation and throw away all the times he actually acted in that series.
Which would be 179 I believe - 7 for the # of seasons.
So don't count the 172 other times he acted in the series.
So throw out those 172 times he acted in the series and go down to just 7.
He's profiled as "acted" in those # of episodes, but some want to just throw out all those time he's acted in the series all the way down to just 7.
I also think some are getting confused as the difference between the main database and their local. Of course no one would own 10 copies of just one film. However across the world there will be many who own a copy of the same movie. So just because many people around the world own the same movie and an actor appears in all those profiles for that same film it should only count as one credit.
I thought the entire idea of the CLT was to find out the greater # someone is credited in profiles and not the greater @ of titles they appear in. Aren't we supposed to find the most profiled credit to see how someone is more commonly credited as? |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,738 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
I don't understand the relevance of how many copies I would own of each title. The relevance is that some people are willing to let large amounts of copies of ONE title (in this example: 'Pearl Harbor') decide which name variant to use as the "common name", while the "large amounts of copies of the same title" principle never applies to any of the users' local databases. The criterium for selecting the "common name" would be based on something that NEVER occurs in any of our local databases. In fact: it would mostly be the exact opposite: while 'Pearl Harbor' may have a big influence in the CLT, locally it's just one title like the rest of them, easily outnumbered by a few of those 17 Bobby Jacoby ones. That's what I tried to explain. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,245 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Quoting CubbyUps:
Quote:
I would want to know the greater # of acting jobs an actor had using a certain name instead of the # of films he appeared in.
Aren't they the same thing? How would the number of acting jobs differ from how many films he's appeared in? Nope!! An actor in a tv series can appear multiple time in a dvd profile, but if we count only the title then it would count as just one acting job. I don't know his name, but whoever the actor is that played Gul Dukat in DS9. Lets say in season 5 he appears and is profiled as such in 7 episodes. Do you want to count that as just one acting job or 7? Also what happens if has a different role in one episode? Still just count it as just one or include it since it is a different role? 7 is the correct answer of course imo. Perhaps I'm just a moron. |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,738 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CubbyUps: Quote:
I thought the entire idea of the CLT was to find out the greater # someone is credited in profiles and not the greater @ of titles they appear in. I thought (and think!) it's exactly the other way around: the CLT is meant to show in how different titles someone appears. It's just a very basic tool which gives us very basic, raw results - it's hampered by the fact that it counts every translated title, and if I'm not mistaken, every different "edition" as a separate title, so it takes a bit more work to extract the actual number of titles. Again, to me the number of profiles doesn't have any value at all, exactly because it's mostly just three pages of one and the same 'Pearl Harbor' credit. That doesn't tell me anything, and that's not what I consider "the most-credited form" to mean. |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | I see what you mean now about acting jobs - I didn't get your example before. But I think TV series are a different problem altogether, as you say - a single profile can hold multiple credits for one person. Do we count a credit in a TV series as 1 (title), 7 (seasons), 49 (discs/profiles) or 179 (credits)? That I don't know!  Quote:
I thought the entire idea of the CLT was to find out the greater # someone is credited in profiles and not the greater @ of titles they appear in. Aren't we supposed to find the most profiled credit to see how someone is more commonly credited as? That's the problem - all we've been told is that we're to use the most commonly credited form of a name. But we haven't been how to determine that. Some are saying we count "credits" (or titles), whereas others are saying we count profiles. Both ways have a logic to them, however as Paul said, counting profiles would minimise the alterations needed to the database, and Invelos decisions in the past do seem to infer they prefer to work that way. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
Quoting pauls42:
Quote:
Trying to only use Titles is irrelevant - we are not trying to use a 'correct' name - purely the one which appears in the most profiles.
No, we're not. Per Ken's specific instructions, we're after the "most-credited form".
But Paul's got a very good point. The idea of using the name that appears in most profiles makes sense. And the phrase "most-credited form" is very vague and can mean either titles or profiles.
Last time this came up I was on the side of using titles, as I saw it as 1 title = 1 credit.
However I do see the logic of using the name that appears in most profiles as what would be the point of having to change 75 "Pearl Harbor" profiles, simply because an extra also appeared in a couple of small independent films that only have 1 profile each. Makes more sense to change the 2 profiles to match the 75! And you were right north in 1 title=1 credit. Now that doesn't mean ONE TITLE only, perhaps we should say One Title/One Version=1 Credit, As I noted and as tim knows only too well as well, the CLT is loaded with BAD data from users not following the rules. Thus you will find MANY variant crossovers. Let's take Variant A and Variant B for title X, the Actual On screen credit is variant A, but you will likely find a number of Profiles which are erroneously using Variant B as the credit thus completely making a hash of the CLT results. This could be happening because of OLD data which was converted from IVS, users managing to get their personal bias into the database instead of what the rules say ort any number of other possibilities. The point is using the Profiles is likely to lead to a potentially incorrect CLT. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,738 |
| | Posted: | | | | I repeat: if there are 17 "Bobby Jacoby" credits out there, and only 4 "Robert Jayne" credits - then how can we possibly sustain "Robert Jayne" as the "common name"? How is that "common" by anyone's standard? The only place it may look "common" is the CLT, but locally, it'll be the exact opposite. I don't own 'Pearl Harbor', but I do own six "Bobby Jacoby" credits. So I'd have to use "credited as" for all of them just because there are 75 'Pearl Harbor' entries in the master database? Even if I did own 'Pearl Harbor', even if I owned ALL "Robert Jayne" credits that are currently available - even then my "Bobby Jacoby" credits would still be in the majority. And I'd expect the situation to be similar in most users' collections: now if most users have more "Bobby Jacoby" credits in their database than "Robert Jayne" credits, why would we insist on calling the latter "common"?
I must not have paid enough attention in match classes all those years ago: I just don't see how, faced with an 80% vs. 20% ratio, some people want to declare the 20% to be the "common" one... |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
I repeat: if there are 17 "Bobby Jacoby" credits out there, and only 4 "Robert Jayne" credits - then how can we possibly sustain "Robert Jayne" as the "common name"? How is that "common" by anyone's standard? The only place it may look "common" is the CLT, but locally, it'll be the exact opposite. I don't own 'Pearl Harbor', but I do own six "Bobby Jacoby" credits. So I'd have to use "credited as" for all of them just because there are 75 'Pearl Harbor' entries in the master database? Even if I did own 'Pearl Harbor', even if I owned ALL "Robert Jayne" credits that are currently available - even then my "Bobby Jacoby" credits would still be in the majority. And I'd expect the situation to be similar in most users' collections: now if most users have more "Bobby Jacoby" credits in their database than "Robert Jayne" credits, why would we insist on calling the latter "common"?
I must not have paid enough attention in match classes all those years ago: I just don't see how, faced with an 80% vs. 20% ratio, some people want to declare the 20% to be the "common" one... But you're looking at it from a local point of view, we're talking about the online database here. I don't own Pearl Harbour, and I never will. There's a good chance that all my credits for this person will be Bobby Jacoby, but that doesn't mean that should be his common name. The common name must cater for the majority, not the individual. And I believe that means we should choose the name that means the least number of changes to the database, so we count profiles - not titles. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | But the profiles are WRONG, north.
We can prove that time and time again.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
But the profiles are WRONG, north.
We can prove that time and time again.
Skip That's irrelevant to this discussion. If the profiles are wrong, then they'll affect the title count too. We're talking here about how to interpret the CLT results. They still have to be gauged for accuracy. |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,738 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
The common name must cater for the majority, not the individual. Exactly my point! And with 17 versus 4 credits, the majority of the users will have more "Bobby Jacoby" in his/her local database. I do, you do, and most other users will, too. Using the "common name" as the "common name" will do that...  Only when we start twisting and turning to try and get the 20% variant to be declared the "common" one, THEN we're going to move away from the situation as it occurs in the databases of most users. It really is that obvious. Short and sweet: if you concede that "Bobby Jacoby" is the common name, four titles will need the use of "credited as". If you insists that "Robert Jayne" is the common name, seventeen titles will need the use of "credited as". I know wat I prefer. Apart from that: Skip is right. The "number of profiles" balance is now 121 vs. 90 - the difference is probably just a few incorrect IMDb-mined credits, meaning that even the "number of profile" balance is about to shift once a few more profiles get corrected. So this time it'll solve itself, I expect. Nevertheless, I'd really like Ken to chime in and confirm (okay, okay: or deny) that we're to look at different titles, not just the total number of profiles. |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Short and sweet: if you concede that "Bobby Jacoby" is the common name, four titles will need the use of "credited as". If you insists that "Robert Jayne" is the common name, seventeen titles will need the use of "credited as". I know wat I prefer.
If you insist that "Bobby Jacoby" is the common name, 121 profiles will need the use of "credited as". If you concede that "Robert Jayne" is the common name, 90 profiles will need the use of "credited as". I know wat I prefer. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
Short and sweet: if you concede that "Bobby Jacoby" is the common name, four titles will need the use of "credited as". If you insists that "Robert Jayne" is the common name, seventeen titles will need the use of "credited as". I know wat I prefer.
If you insist that "Bobby Jacoby" is the common name, 121 profiles will need the use of "credited as". If you concede that "Robert Jayne" is the common name, 90 profiles will need the use of "credited as". I know wat I prefer. Well now that's just silly. Do you have 90 or 121 titles that you need to change? Of course not. This whole CLT thing is a pile of crap and I refuse to play, but Tim is right. Make one choice and at most 4 titles in your, or anyone else's DB will be broken, make the other and at most 17 will be broken. | | | | Last edited: by mdnitoil |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | The point I was trying to make is that it's a question of perspective.
From an individual's point of view it may seem that choosing one name will create more work - and it may for their database - but for the database overall it would actually create less work.
Choosing Bobby Jacoby may mean you have to edit 4 profiles instead of 17, but it also means that Invelos have to deal with 121 changes instead of 90. Multiply that over all the common name changes and that's gotta be a big number of profiles! |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,245 |
| | Posted: | | | | I will say that Skip is correct in that many profiles contain incorrect data.
According to the link I provided in the Credited As thread Robert Jayne didn't go by that name until the year 2000, from 1979 to 2000 he went by Bobby Jacoby.
So profiles for such titles as Iron Eagle, Can't Hardly Wait, Tremors, Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence, are all incorrectly using only Robert Jayne instead of Bobby Jacoby which is what he would have been credited with. Most if not all of these incorrect profiles are for non-region 1 releases.
So, yes the database is full of errors.
However, the contribution rules states to use the CLT to choose the most credited as name, and right now (including the obviously incorrect credits) he is credited in most profiles with Robert Jayne.
Since it's obvious that the non Region 1 releases are in error, the only way to correct this is for non Region 1 owners of these titles to redo the profiles. Until that happens, the CLT results are tipping in favor of Robert Jayne in this case because of these incorrect profiles.
But this does bring up the following point.
Should we put a stop of using the CLT for Credited As for a period of time to flesh out obviously wrong profiles.
Perhaps something like a few months to give everybody a chance to recheck their profiles for all cases of Credited As (Common Name) and to also check obviously incorrect profiles especially it seems non Region 1 profiles.
I will say that now I am puzzled as to whether or not I should go ahead and allow those Robert Jayne (Bobby Jacoby) to go through or to withdraw them since they are based partly on the results of the CLT which is influenced by incorrect data. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ken already answered that question... if you can prove the look-up tool to be wrong... then you can use the correct common name. But you do have to offer proof... which seems you are basically doing since you can prove that he was credited a certain way till the year 2000... and have the R1 titles to go by to show as proof. | | | | Pete |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |