Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
while it is ultimately up to Ken I will always vote against this idea... as I fundamentally disagree.

Yes I know that you prefer lazy copy than search of accuracy. Good choice for a useless database.

Accuracy to the credits, while useless for you, is still accuracy.  As for it being lazy, I've copied many cast and crew lists and it isn't something a lazy person does as it is a lot of work.  A lazy person would simply scrape the data from another source.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
As for it being lazy, I've copied many cast and crew lists and it isn't something a lazy person does as it is a lot of work.

I have not said that anyone was lazy. I wrote that the activity of copying exactly data without thinking about its accuracy is lazy.

I think that working to obtain a good (= linking, searchable, sortable, filterable) database needs a lot of hard work, much more than simply copying blindly alphanumeric signs without thinking about their real signification. I understand that some users are interested to know what is on cover/credits. Scans of covers, or screencaps of credits that you can put in images galeries are perfect for this purpose. When you fill fields in a database, the purpose is to be able to use this data with program functions, and this cannot be done if the same "object" appears in the database in different manners, which is exactly what present rules ask us to do. And I remember discussions about correct data, when some users said it would be too long to verify every credit, specially concerning foreign (for them) languages.

OMG!

Surfeur, databases usually do not distinguish cases, so for the search and linking functions there is absolutely no difference between Bruce Willis, BRUCE WILLIS, BrUcE wIlLiS (or any other variant).

There is a difference between Bruce and Bruçe though.

Quoting mandatory:

Quote:
This program is ancient in the meantime.

Check back in another 5 years as there might be an update by that time.  No guarantees though. 

Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
Whenever a new field gets added or changed or the rules on a field are revised, then everything ends up having to be resubmitted.

New fields are quite easy, just as back when the color-information (or was it dimensions?) came around: first submission is accepted automatically.

Quoting LKanne:

Quote:
Quoting JMGuer:

Quote:
Quoting SwissFilm:

Quote:

For me it runs nice.

Ditto.

but not for me.
There is still this bug in program when in Cast a Group is directly followed by an Episode.
 

Yes, well since I don't use that feature, I wouldn't be aware of any bug.
I personally have only ever encountered one minor bug in my use of DVDP, but its something I can live with, but that's neither here nor there.
In any case, I sincerely wish you luck in getting that bug fixed and every other bug anyone else has encountered.

Quoting SwissFilm:

Quote:
Also with the BY's we have bugs. If I have an Actor with let's say 30 films, all with no BY what is correct and then when I download a film where this same Actor has by fault a BY, then it changes me all 31 entries with BY. Instead of opening the Actor with BY only for the downloaded film. So you get always a mess again. If you like your BY's are everywhere correct you must do every change manually to be sure and then lock the database for Cast and Crew.

It boils down to the old problem that we don't have a proper actor database but only a wild aggregation of names in different profiles that - when they are identical - are presumed to be the same person.