Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I like it, but am also thinking about the amount of work that would be required to do all this.

And THAT is exactly the point, hal.

I really don't want to sound rude and I have nobody particular in mind, but as a matter of fact I sometimes get the impression that many users spend more time in the forum discussing things back and forth or coming up with ideas that others - namely the ones who actually DO contribute profiles - would have to pay for, instead of simply helping improve the database themselves. 

Well, I admit that fresh ideas can sometimes be useful, so let's look at this one. What would be the consequences if the community decided they want a change ?

1. First of all the rules would have to be altered. Sounds simple, doesn't it ? In fact, it sound so simple that in every other thread in this forum you read comments like "We need this" and "We need that" in the rules and "This should be changed" and "That should be corrected".

Guys, GET IN INTO YOUR HEADS: Every stupid little syllable that you would like to see changed in the rules has to be discussed until the cow comes home, then proposals have to be written, these proposals have to be voted on, then someone else comes with a new approach that is "much better than anything that was proposed before" and the discussion starts again. Practically every single one of these discussion lead absolutely nowhere (just have a look into the rules forum), especially if "You-know-who" and "The-other-you-know-who" are involved.

And even if you reach a consensus, it is very likely that Ken is simple not interested in a change (like he was in the case of the proposed alterations to the TV series section). I have practically given up on improving the contribution rules, and I can only wonder that even some committee members have been able to keep up a naive optimism when it comes to desired rule changes.


2. Not only do the rules need altering, they need altering in a very complicated way for the ideas we're discussing here. As was already mentioned, some movies have up to three sections with cast lists in their credits, some have no opening credits at all etc. I'm certain there are lots of other variations nobody can currently imagine. I am absolutely sure it is not possible to come up with a rule that covers all these cases in a reasonable way.


3. Even if by some divine miracle a reasonable new rule was written, voted for and accepted by Ken (and I'd estimate the probability of winning 50 Million $ in the lottery until the end of the year much higher than seeing this happen), it would increase the amount of work for the (very few) contributors who actually DO upload cast lists even more - maybe even drive many of the remaining away from uploading.


And all this fuss for some users being able to get better reports - a feature I have not even touched in six years Profiler ? No way, a big fat "No, leave them where they are" from me!

Quoting TigiHof:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I like it, but am also thinking about the amount of work that would be required to do all this.

And THAT is exactly the point, hal.

I really don't want to sound rude and I have nobody particular in mind, but as a matter of fact I sometimes get the impression that many users spend more time in the forum discussing things back and forth or coming up with ideas that others - namely the ones who actually DO contribute profiles - would have to pay for, instead of simply helping improve the database themselves. 

Sorry, but that isn't the point.  I contribute cast and crew lists and, if this were adopted, I would continue to contribute cast and crew lists.  My focus is on how to make the profile data better for the user and I am not worried about the extra work.  Nobody said they would all have to be changed 'right now'.  As with the original change in where to get the cast list, this would be a gradual change.

Quote:
And all this fuss for some users being able to get better reports - a feature I have not even touched in six years Profiler ? No way, a big fat "No, leave them where they are" from me!

As Goodguy pointed out in the other thread, this is about more than getting better reports...

Quoting goodguy:

Quote:
It should be pointed out that the current rules damage program functionality in various areas, including:

Movie Pick

Detail View

Reports

PDA

I am totally against this proposal. I gave my reasons in the other thread but I will repeat them here.

1. Bloating database with redundant information.
2. When double-clicking on an actor's name to see what other films in your collection that actor played in it doubles the titles returned for actors listed multiple times in a profile for those with PDAs and DVDPM.

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
I am totally against this proposal. I gave my reasons in the other thread but I will repeat them here.

1. Bloating database with redundant information.
2. When double-clicking on an actor's name to see what other films in your collection that actor played in it doubles the titles returned for actors listed multiple times in a profile for those with PDAs and DVDPM.

This would be only in the case of copying the actors to different sections. I also strongly object to this because it goes against the laws of a relational dateabase (which the DVD profiler database is).
Its called redundancy.

Quoting LJG:

Quote:
Who would decide who the "feature" actors are?

It's the beginning credits first followed by the end credits. No decisions are necessary.

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:

I will have to think about what it was that confused me and get back to you. 

http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=198443

I agree with Unicus69, the wording of the poll is not clear.
IMO could be rephrased like this:

1. Yes, I want the top-billed actors to be listed first in the database, in the same order as the studios listed them in the opening titles. After that, let's list the *entire* cast as in the end credits, after a divider.

2. Yes, I want the top-billed actors to be listed first, in the same order as the studios listed them in the opening titles. After that, list the *rest* of the cast as in the end credits.

3. No, I like it the way it is now, all the actors listed *only* as in the end credits, even if in alphabetical order or in order of appearance.

4. Other (please explain)

5. Don't care



Besides, let's make it more clear *why* we are asking that, what the implications would be for the functionality of the program (Movie Picker, Reports, Layouts, and all the features that rely on the exact order actors are listed, supposedly feature actors first!), but also in terms of work to update the database (choice #1 would mean you can *add* information to the existing data, separated by a divider; choice #2 would mean you have to sort again the existing lists).

That, and more, has been discussed in http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=198443

Thanks mate.  I couldn't put my finger on it but you have explained it quite well. 

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:

2. When double-clicking on an actor's name to see what other films in your collection that actor played in it doubles the titles returned for actors listed multiple times in a profile

That alone is reason enough to NEVER ever artificially duplicate any cast info in a profile. Moving the front credit actors to the front though might be a good idea, but only if we find a good way to word that rule.

One example where I kinda did this already: Catch-22. Some actors (like Arkin) are ONLY credited in the front credits. Thus I added them to the cast list in front of everyone else.

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
I am totally against this proposal. I gave my reasons in the other thread but I will repeat them here.

1. Bloating database with redundant information.

It might add a few extra bytes in case #1, not in case #2. However, not that much: it's only text we are talking about.
On the other hand, now we are leaving out a relevant piece of information: who the big stars are. The studios provide that information in the opening titles -feature actors are top billed-, but we deliberately choose to ignore that information!

Quote:
2. When double-clicking on an actor's name to see what other films in your collection that actor played in it doubles the titles returned for actors listed multiple times in a profile for those with PDAs and DVDPM.

I don't own a PDA and DVDPM so I really can't say about that, but I tried in DVDP: if I double-click on an actor's name to see what other films in my collection that actor played in, it does *not* double  the titles returned for actors listed multiple times in a profile.
Maybe DVDP and DVDPM work differently on that respect, and that's something that could be fixed.
Anyway, *not* listing actors in the order the studios wanted them in the opening titles, affects other functionalies of the program, like Reports and Movie Picker. Other users who have DVDPM also said that having feature actors first is helpful on their PDA.