| Author |
Message |
 | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | As I said, figure this one out yourselves. | | | | Dan |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 |  Posts: 426 |
| | Posted: | | | | ...a post which illustrates your childishness.
Just accept the fact and get over it, or I'd start thinking you had an emotional bond with those casetype rules. | | | | Last edited: by hevanw |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
As I said in another thread... a single line in the case type thread can also keep it simple and give the users what they want...
Use Boxset (slipcase) case type only for boxset profiles. Not for single movie/episode profiles.
So this is a thinpak?
What is this?
and this?
 The first is a Slip Cover (with the child profiles listed as thinpaks). The second is a digipak. The third is a Slip Cover (with the child profiles listed as keepcases). This shouldn't be that difficult. If a case contains more than one different case inside, it should be a Slip Cover. If there is only one case inside, it is that type (keepcase, digipak, etc.). |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 951 |
| | Posted: | | | | You guys really shouldn't be coming down on Dan or anyone else that was just following Ken's original direction.
Like many of you I didn't want to go changing thousands of profiles to conform to Slip Case. But, if that was what Ken wanted, then when it comes to the online DB I would do it.
The original use of profiling the Slip Case was no different than when we have a TIN we would profile it as Custom even though the packaging inside the TIN was something else. I never saw anyone complain about profiling a release in a TIN as custom. So you all really should give Dan a break, we can't a be beating him up everytime we want an exception to the way we profile.
Ken has spoken on how to handle Slip Case's only with Box Set Parent Profiles. | | | Are you local?
This is a local shop the strangers you would bring would not understand us, our customs, our local ways. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lyonsden5: Quote:
not sure who "You People" are but I have made one comment pre Ken's post and that was this morning, addressing Rifter's incorrect assessment of what was happening. Please get you generalizations correct if you're going to use them.
For the record I'm all for rational discussions. In fact there is another forum I've been frequenting where they happen all the time. They just don't happen here much at all. I do agree it is difficult to have one with someone who is not rational though. Makes you wonder why I can have them elsewhere but not in a thread where you're involved.  Then demonstrate it, your actions here belie the statement. I have montored that other Forum to which you refer and even though I do not actively particip[ate i have noticed soem of your comment style is carried there as well, some of them involving me even though I don't actively post. Change your condescending and insulting attitude. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
As I said, I have yet to see a digipack that wasn't contained in something. From what I am hearing from others, they seem to be of the same opinion.
That opinion would be wrong.
How many of you have "The Marx Brothers: Silver Screen Collection" 025192125027 or
"Notting Hill" 025192127724 or
"American Pie" 025192145520 ?
There are plenty of others. Show me a picture of a digipack WITHOUT a cover of some kind. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 1,911 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
As I said, I have yet to see a digipack that wasn't contained in something. From what I am hearing from others, they seem to be of the same opinion.
That opinion would be wrong.
How many of you have "The Marx Brothers: Silver Screen Collection" 025192125027 or
"Notting Hill" 025192127724 or
"American Pie" 025192145520 ?
There are plenty of others.
Show me a picture of a digipack WITHOUT a cover of some kind. Is this a challenge? I can possibly show 4 if not more. | | | | Signature banned: Reason out of date... |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Repter: Quote:
In Dutch there is a concept called "maatschappelijk draagvlak". I don't know what it's called in English, but it basically means that in legislation, you take into account what the majority of the population deems reasonable. If you have an existing law, that no one follows because it is not reasonable, then that law needs to be reconsidered.
Anyway, from the two polls that I held, it was clear that the majority of the DP users do NOT use Boxset casetype if inside the slipcase there is a single box containing multiple movies, let alone 1 movie (which was not in the poll). So I wonder why it has to be forced upon us to now all of a sudden do it differently because that was the rule. It is probably much simpler to just update the rules to suit what is widely accepted by all users. It will also avoid that a whole lot of profiles need to be modified and approved.
The reason why the majority of voters voted like that is also because it makes MOST SENSE. The current single-movie 'Dan rule' is illogical for a number of reasons:
1. Why is a sleeve different from a slipcase...? In both cases you have an enclosing that is redundant. Throw it away, and you still have all the info you need.
2. More often than not, a sleeve or slipcase for a certain release will just disappear in time with the same DVD being released without the extra enclosing. A profile for the inner case will be usable for a lot more users than one with the enclosing.
3. The slipcase or sleeve are simply not holding the disks, it's the inner case that does.
4. The reason that that is what you see on the shelves can also be used as a counter argument. If you can see it on the shelves why would you need the info ? It is then the more useful to actually know what is INSIDE without having to remove any shrinkwrap.
Unfortunately Ken already decided to change the name Boxset into Slipcase, which makes the whole discussion a lost cause I'm afraid. The name 'Boxset' perfectly matched with boxes that contain multiple items (even if it is only 1 movie, see Dan's Hellboy example). Slipcase clearly also refers to single movies  . You all are forgetting one thing here. In a boxset, the outer case carries the UPC. That's why it gets a parent profile. The inner contents may or may not have a UPC associated with each disc in the set. That's why we have 'digipack' and 'keep case' as case type choices. Slipcase should only be used for box sets (TV or movie). That isn't hard to understand or write a rule for. Single movies should use whatever the case type is that actually HOLDS the disc. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,911 |
| | Posted: | | | | 1. WrestleMania 22
2. Ultimate Ric Flair Collection
3. THe New and Improved DX
4. The Greatest Wrestling Stars of the 80's
5. Mr. McMahon
6. Bret Hart: The Best There Is, The Best There Was, The Best There Ever Will Be
7. Jake Roberts: Pick Your Posion
All are multi disc digipacks with NO slip cover or slip case. And, I don't want to hear the "Well, those are all wrestling sets" arguement, cause, it doesn't matter what they are, they are DVD sets. | | | | Signature banned: Reason out of date... |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pplchamp: Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
As I said, I have yet to see a digipack that wasn't contained in something. From what I am hearing from others, they seem to be of the same opinion.
That opinion would be wrong.
How many of you have "The Marx Brothers: Silver Screen Collection" 025192125027 or
"Notting Hill" 025192127724 or
"American Pie" 025192145520 ?
There are plenty of others.
Show me a picture of a digipack WITHOUT a cover of some kind.
Is this a challenge? I can possibly show 4 if not more. Then do it. Am I stuttering or something? | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
|
| Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | | Dan | | | | Last edited: by Dan W |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pplchamp: Quote:
1. WrestleMania 22
2. Ultimate Ric Flair Collection
3. THe New and Improved DX
4. The Greatest Wrestling Stars of the 80's
5. Mr. McMahon
6. Bret Hart: The Best There Is, The Best There Was, The Best There Ever Will Be
7. Jake Roberts: Pick Your Posion
All are multi disc digipacks with NO slip cover or slip case. And, I don't want to hear the "Well, those are all wrestling sets" arguement, cause, it doesn't matter what they are, they are DVD sets. And from my tv series collection... there is also the All in the Family: Season 1 and The Dead Zone: Season 1 sets... they are both multi-disc digipacks without any type of slipcover or slipcase. and that is just at first glance... there could be more that I have. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Posts: 426 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
You all are forgetting one thing here. In a boxset, the outer case carries the UPC. That's why it gets a parent profile. The inner contents may or may not have a UPC associated with each disc in the set. That's why we have 'digipack' and 'keep case' as case type choices.
Slipcase should only be used for box sets (TV or movie). That isn't hard to understand or write a rule for. Single movies should use whatever the case type is that actually HOLDS the disc. Rifter, there are basically 3 school of thoughts: yours: anything with multiple movies or a TV series is a Boxset. Dan's: anything that has a slipcase around it, is a Boxset (which made even more sense after Invelos renamed it to Slipcase) even for single movies rest: Boxset is only used when the box contains separate cases. Frankly, I think there's something to say for each of those. Each one has its strengths and each one has its disadvantages. Anyone who thinks their choice is superior and flawless really needs to drop their ego. Personally, I wouldn't have minded if Ken came up with another choice (although obviously I also had my preference  ). The important thing for me (and the community) was that we finally had an unambiguous statement from Invelos such that that would end all arguments about this rule and we will finally end up with consistent profiles. Wrt Dan. I can very well understand his frustration with what happened. As far as I understand, a while ago he got a mandate to set this rule (hence the reference in the rules to his thread). Now all of a sudden Ken shows up stating that it should be different, following the majority. However, there is no need to vent this on the forums, but better talk this out with Ken. If I can draw one conclusion, it is that I simply cannot understand why Invelos doesn't have anyone who takes ACTIVE ownership of the rules. It's almost as if they don't really care that much about the rules. The rules are however an essential part of a community driven database. Without rules, you would have endless Yes-No voting wars and profiles changing back and forth. What we really need is 1 person in charge of setting and updating the rules and communicating this to the community (by both announcing in the forums and updating the website). This person should be in close contact with the developers to be fully able to assess any impact wrt the software itself (and planned future changes). He (or she ) should also be in close contact with the community via the forums, to pick up any suggestions and discussions and preferences living in the community. E.g. I really cannot understand why Ken's clarification in the forums still doesn't show up in the online rules. Come on, that's like adding 2 lines of text to a webpage. How difficult can that be ?! |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 278 |
| | Posted: | | | | ... | | | | Guns don't kill people. Hammers do. | | | | Last edited: by Kevin Coed |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 278 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Quoting pplchamp:
Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Is this a challenge? I can possibly show 4 if not more.
Then do it. Am I stuttering or something? Here you go. Does this cure your stutter?   I've got several more like that too... | | | | Guns don't kill people. Hammers do. | | | | Last edited: by Kevin Coed |
|
| Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Repter: Quote:
Wrt Dan. I can very well understand his frustration with what happened. As far as I understand, a while ago he got a mandate to set this rule (hence the reference in the rules to his thread). Now all of a sudden Ken shows up stating that it should be different, following the majority. However, there is no need to vent this on the forums, but better talk this out with Ken. You're assuming quite a lot. It has been settled between Ken and I. You may not like what I did but I was simply informing the forum of the change in how I will deal with this in the future. | | | | Dan |
|