Back on topic: I'm not entirely sure what the goal of this thread is. Is the idea to invalidate all common name-finding threads entirely, and just always go by the raw CLT numbers instead? That would be a really bad idea - it would, in most cases, simply boil down to: "let's use the IMDb-name". I really don't believe that's what we want, and that certainly wasn't Ken's intention either.

Ken's key quote on the matter is here:

Quote:
The lookup tool is not to be blindly trusted, however it does outweigh other sources, including autographs.  The common name is not intended to always reflect the "real name", but the most commonly credited name.

However, if a user documents errors in the database where the credit is not entered properly, that can and should be considered.  Better yet, correct the entries, assuming you own the discs in question, thereby correcting the lookup results.

That second half of this statement from 2007 is where common name-finding threads came from: this statement is what started them. "If a user documents errors in the database where the credit is not entered properly, that can and should be considered" - that's what common name-finding threads are, that's exactly what they do. These threads serve as documentation that certain credits appearing in the CLT aren't entered properly, and, per Ken's statement, those findings subsequently not only can but should be considered. So that's what we've been doing ever since.

The reason for this thread is that I wanted to find out - if possible - what Ken's thoughts about the commmon name threads were. I wasn't convinced by the quote that was presented.

Quote:
The lookup tool is not to be blindly trusted, however it does outweigh other sources, including autographs. 

That rather speaks against common name threads.

Quote:
The common name is not intended to always reflect the "real name", but the most commonly credited name.

I take that to mean "the most commonly credited name in the online database", since that is what the CLT does. If he meant something else, surely he would have clarified that.

Quote:
However, if a user documents errors in the database where the credit is not entered properly, that can and should be considered.

The common name threads do not actually point out profiles where the credit is not entered correctly.

Quote:
Better yet, correct the entries, assuming you own the discs in question, thereby correcting the lookup results.

Update the profiles and the CLT result works better. I'm all for that.

While I'm convinced that the common name threads are actually counter productive, it's not important what I think. And it's not important what "we" want. It's still Ken's database, and it's important what he wants. That's why I was hoping for some quotes where he directly commented on the common name threads.

If the goal is to improve name linking, then surely it is easiest to keep the names that are already most common in the online database? Also, like I have already pointed out, having two different ways of determining common names is not a good thing. Add to that the fact that there is nothing in the rules that indicates the use of common names, which means that users that don't follow the forums will be left in the dark.

However, if I can be convinced that this is actually what Ken wanted, then I can stop obsessing about it and accept it even if I don't agree with it.

I think a major problem in this discussion is the definition of the phrase „most commonly credited name“.

An artist gets credited for his work on a project.
When we collect different releases/translations/variants of this project, the artist still got credited once for it.
Unfortunately the CLT counts the titles not the original titles, thats why there is almost always a much bigger number of titles than actual works.

If we were after the most collected credit the titles number could be disregarded completely.

So what do the common names threads do?
identify wrong entries – that's covered in above quotes
count the actual credits – this interpretation of the above quotes seems as valid as any other, but way more logical (in my eyes at least).

Some examples I just counted today, where the difference may not be deciscive but visible:

James Sabat 101 titles for 81 films,  James J. Sabat 37 titles for 27 films,  12 films counted for both
Lonnie Smith 27 titles for 16 films,  Lonnie R. Smith 16 titles for 10 films,  4 films counted for both
Lane Bradbury 40 titles for 18 films,  Janette Lane Bradbury 16 titles for 6 films,  2 films counted for both

Here is a novel concept: is anyone willing to spend as much time creatively suggesting possible solutions in lieu of all the energy expended, constantly rehashing and complaining about the mess? Or maybe that's the fun, after all? A solution would be boring. Now somebody will say, "if you are so smart, why don't you solve it?". Not saying I know the solution, but for me, the fun is creatively looking for one, as opposed to endlessly complaining about the problem. (Oh no, now I get kicked off the Forum    ).

Quoting mediadogg:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:

Ken subsequently also posted this (bottom of the page), saying "Some were interpreting this to mean the CLT result is the correct common name regardless of other factors", and then explaining that that's not the case.
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
The bottom line is simple - we're after the most commonly credited name.  As in the original post, and in this post, the best solution is to correct the incorrect profiles so the CLT reflects the most commonly credited name.

Can't get much clearer than that!

Well, actually it could get clearer than that. "Regardless of other factors" is rather vague. Is Ken referring to the passus in the rules that says "If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary"? If so, then yes, documentation of the most common name for each person would be necessary. But only in that case.

Also, Ken says "The lookup tool is not to be blindly trusted, however it does outweigh other sources", but the proponents of the common name threads seem to say that the CLT is not to be trusted at all.

Bottom line - I'm still not convinced.

Quoting mediadogg:

Quote:
I did not realize that there was some sort of dispute regarding common name vs. CLT

Well, the dispute is whether to always use the findings in the common name threads over the CLT results. Or rather if that was what Ken wanted.

Quote:
I was not aware of the fact that there is a "common name routine". Where is this tool?

Unclear, but I think that yeshee means the CLT.

Quote:
was CLTBoss a total waste of time?

Absolutely not! For one thing, unlike the CLT, CLTBoss (plus CLTInfo) lets you separate the result by credit, making it easier to determine if a name is likely to refer to more than one person. It also helps to find profiles with wrong production year or wrong original title, making it easier to fix these titles for those who want to take the time to do that. This of course helps to improve the ordinary CLT results.

Ok, now back at my desktop. Maybe I can finally post this response. My phone was not working.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I so much appreciate the quick responses from GSyren and yeshee. Things are clearer now. I am just a mechanic in this subject area. Like a puppy eagerly awaiting the toss of some object. I go running and come back, tail wagging, with the stick, looking for a pat-pat and "atta boy!"

So what is that automated tool you wish for? That's my game. Tell me to "go fetch!" and maybe I can add it to CLTBoss. Or maybe it makes sense for somebody else to do it. The important thing is that we found out maybe the need for yet another tool to help people make accurate contributions. And I definitely support that goal.

I am still not totally sure what the common name is used for, and where, as a Profiler user, I see it. Maybe I'm just too old now.

If you want to try CLTBoss, you MUST view at least the overview demo video. Otherwise, I assure you, your attempt to use the plugin is likely to fail to please.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Absolutely not! For one thing, unlike the CLT, CLTBoss (plus CLTInfo) lets you separate the result by credit, making it easier to determine if a name is likely to refer to more than one person.

This reminds me that I've never understood why the CLT combines cast and crew into one lookup when the program keeps separate databases for cast and crew.  I've always felt there should have been two CLTs.

---------------