Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I originally hung my hat on the phrase 'carbon copy'...which it seems you are doing as well.  But, there is that pesky 'if you believe' that he stuck at the beginning...

If you want to go with "if you believe" then we should remove all uncredited and all role names and start over. You'll always be able to find someone who "believes" the data came from IMDb.

I don't want to go with it but I can see how someone can get that from Ken's statement.  Believe me, if I could ignore it I would...but I have a rep to protect. 

Quote:
Also, the fact that most of the names in the Invelos record match most of the names at IMDb doesn't conclusively mean that the data came from IMDb. I just did an audit of a TV series and provided an update to both Invelos and IMDb. As soon as everything's accepted, by that standard, my TV series could be removed from Invelos for looking too much like IMDb. I've done that many times with films.

Again, I understand what you are saying.  But it wasn't just most of the names...it was every name and role.  This is an old film and, from what I could gather, did not have standard credits.  Because of that, it was quite obvious...to me at least...that the cast list was copied from a 3rd part db.  My opinion might be different if it wasn't for that.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Again, I understand what you are saying.  But it wasn't just most of the names...it was every name and role.  This is an old film and, from what I could gather, did not have standard credits.  Because of that, it was quite obvious...to me at least...that the cast list was copied from a 3rd part db.  My opinion might be different if it wasn't for that.

Unicus, my interest is not in debating the specifics of this case or to challenge your judgment. I was hoping that with's Ken's statement that we had an objective measure of "carbon copy". My point is that if we go with a subjective measure of "if you believe", then there's really no point in even discussing any of this any further since someone will always "believe" the source to be IMDb no matter what the contribution history is.

My vote against Shane is not even regarding the uncredited anyway. It's against the continued inclusion of an uncredited song writer. So I'm not even arguing the merits of the uncredited cast here as much as I'm trying to address the "where do we go from here" aspect of Ken's statement.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Oh, get off it, James.  Do you see me running around willy-nilly chopping off uncredited?  No, I'm not.  Believe me, if I felt like doing that, I could flood this place with stuff like that, and justify most of it with no problem.  But I don't give a damn about it unless it's blatantly obvious like on Shane.  And don't give me any of that red herring crap about TV series.  If you're worried something looks to much like IMDB, it's probably because that's where it came from.  The way some of you guys are fighting tooth and nail to keep this crap in the database, it makes me wonder about your motives.

My message wasn't directed at your handling of uncredited. I was addressing Unicus' points, BUT...

The red herring about TV series is not about that. The TV series is not the relevant part of what I was speaking about. I was referring to my practice of occasionally updating both DVD Profiler and IMDb. I happened to mention that a recent example was a TV series but I also mentioned I've done it for many films. The overall point is that if I make IMDb match DVD Profiler, it puts at risk the DVD Profiler data from being declared derivative of IMDb.

If you would like to question my motives, it's really not that difficult. I just happen to like the uncredited cast data. That's it. I've said it many times. If you have something more sinister in mind, I'm afraid you're off track.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Again, I understand what you are saying.  But it wasn't just most of the names...it was every name and role.  This is an old film and, from what I could gather, did not have standard credits.  Because of that, it was quite obvious...to me at least...that the cast list was copied from a 3rd part db.  My opinion might be different if it wasn't for that.

Unicus, my interest is not in debating the specifics of this case or to challenge your judgment. I was hoping that with's Ken's statement that we had an objective measure of "carbon copy". My point is that if we go with a subjective measure of "if you believe", then there's really no point in even discussing any of this any further since someone will always "believe" the source to be IMDb no matter what the contribution history is.

Believe me James, I thought we had an objective measure as well.  Unfortunately, after reading it a few more times, I realized we didn't.  Those first three words make it an individual choice.  I am not happy about it one bit. 

Why are you trying SO hard to make this difficult?  There's no problem with it being a choice.  Ken realizes that some people want that crap no matter where or how, and some don't.  And then he said if you do remove, it needs to be substantially the same as what the other database shows.  You said yourself, the entire cast list - including the credited cast - was identical, so obviously it needed clean up.  Now, when I put the two lists side by side, I'm looking for same names, same roles, same general layout of the list, same type of punctuation, etc.  Not every stinkin' bit exactly identical.  Going that far is ridiculous because it precludes transcription errors, typos, etc.  Nobody but a damn fool would look at that list and try to say it isn't the same as what is on IMDB for all intents and purposes.  I also submit that anybody who is going to go to that extreme to try to keep this junk in the database has other motives in mind than merely preserving the data.

Wasn't this contribution accepted or rejected already?

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Wasn't this contribution accepted or rejected already?

Not based on my contribution - not yet anyway.

Ken and Gerri are moving right now. Ken posted the updates might be delayed a few days.

pdf

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
What's the UPC?

097360-652246

Dan, the grandfather Rule no longer applies.

Skip

On that I agree. I just checked it.

Skip