Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Is this a joke? It ceratinly reads like one, or someone with out any understanding. Nadja. You were one of thse that i believe said you wanted all the Cast and Crew data for TV with the Parent. Well guess what, MASH: Martinis and Medicine IS the parent (if you purchased it in that form, which i didn't), MASH Season One and so on would be CHILDREN. So for you claim "For one thing, an eleven-season set would NEVER have any credit information in the parent" is flat hypocritical. What it tells ME is that you finally discovered what I saw LOOOOONG ago and decide you didn't like the answer. I call it being gored by your own bull.

When have I EVER spoken in favour of putting credits for 275 episodes in one profile? I've been keeping all information for TV sets in season parents and disc-level children since I have been using them, NEVER in multi-season collections, this being specifically against the rules. Why are you once again lying?

And again, this is one of the multitude of sets where THERE ARE NO SEASON-LEVEL PROFILES! You go from 11-season parent directly to disc-level children. You can't do that AND have a season-level parent inbetween because of the disc ID conflict. Although as ever, you've chosen to ignore what I say and argue with what you would prefer to instead. In this case, complete make-believe.

Quote:
Now you have also chosen to pick an argument with me.

No, Skip. Once again I've simply chosen to call shenanigans on you and your methods of trying to get a point across. And given that you've answered my observations of your lies with... well, lies, it hardly does me any disservice. This is hardly the first time you've shown yourself up. Hell, it's hardly the first time THIS WEEK.

Quote:
There ARE many users, however, who want this feature...who the hell are you to even suggest that they are wrong.

I believe I said AT LEAST TWICE that this would be a useful feature, if you ACTUALLY READ what I said you'll notice that. The point of my message, as I said above, is to call you on your claim that the person-finding task you put forth is difficult to achieve right now.

Quote:
It does NOT impact data entry in any way, which is my primary concern. I frankly have no idea whther i would find such a feature useful, but I sure as hell am not so presumptious as to suggest, since search responds to data entry and does not dictate it, that the users that want it are wrong and shouldn't be able to get the result from a search that best serves them. This is also a purely local matter, it in NO WAY impacts the Online in even the remotest form.

Who brought up data entry? Who brought up the online? More to the point, who are these users that you are pretending to champion for? Or have I simply missed that these users who I'm "calling wrong" in desperate need of defense from... well, absolutely nothing.

Seriously, if you're just going to make up trash to talk and reply to stuff that isn't there, you MUST realise how it makes you look?

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I thought you were among the proponents of the Cast and crew Parent profile Idea, nadja. sorry.

Alright, fair enough. You went over the top either way, but whatever. Who exactly proposed putting 275 episodes' credits in one profile?

Quote:
As for how difficult it may or ,ay not be to achive this, I don't have a copy of delphi and i am not familiar with it, so I can't say one way or the other...can you.

I have no idea. However, yet again you're trying to argue with me against a point I didn't even address.

Quote:
And even the way you describe the setup for MASH is INCONSISTENT and a different from the way it is done. the Disc level profiles SHOULD bve at the new Grandchild level.

Inconsistent with what? HOW many time need I bring up the season/disc one ID clash? Come on smart guy, what exactly is the solution to that in the current incarnation of the program? How can we have a season profile AND all three children?

Quote:
Oh well, why am I NOT surprised.

Because you live in your little dreamworld where the laws of sense and logic are completely different to the rest of us.

I still like the idea of a check box identifying top-billed.

What ego?  It would simply be any one who is credited at the start of the movie.  And since it's a checkbox, there is no worry about sorting or the like and it would allow the movie pick feature to be more effective.

It's all pretty cut-n-dry in my opinion.  Everybody knows the difference between beginning and ending credits.

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
Or maybe a new checkbox called "Top Billed" that is checked when the actor or actress is credited in the opening credits.  Then it's not a matter of rank, it's a matter of who has it checked or not.

Maybe that would make everybody happy. Or a selection window with numbers: Top Billed #1, #2, #3...
Nothing would change in contributions and online database, nobody would be upset for that, but you could mark the top actors locally, so that they show as "Featuring" in your Collection List and in Reports, Movie Picker and so on, even if the cast is listed alphabetically or in order of appearance.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Let's be honest here.  The current rule that says to take the cast list from the end credits only was based on an arbitrary decision.  Nobody took the functionality of the program into consideration.

Well now we have features of the program that simply don't work correctly because of this arbitrary rule.  It just doesn't make any sense to limit the usability of the program for this reason when a simple solution exists.  But, hey, that's just me.

I agree. Reports existed then, of course, but not Movie Picker or the ability to add a cast member twice to a profile or DVD Mobile. All 3 of those post-date the creation of the rules.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:

The bottom line here is that you people don't want to do any work on your local to make it perform as you wish, you want a ready-made database that will jump through YOUR hoops for you. And that just isn't possible, somebody will then start whining about their desire to have a specific functionality addressed as well. Just make yoyur changes locally, that is the wonderful thing about Profiler, every local database is unique to the users OWN specs, ...

For one time, I totally agree with you. I think what is important is to have the possibility to do locally what we want, and dvdprofiler allows that.

But, if we can do what we want with our local database, why try to search the perfection in the on line database, going even to put wrong information just because a typo put it on the cover. I'm quite sure that a great majority of users anyway change the on line profile.

What is important is to have a correct first contribution, a good base for personal profiles. The rules should be simple (in fact, only one is really important : no third party carbon copy...), and the rest should be a guide. With complicated rules, first contributions ARE disappearing, specially in countries where few people speak english. 

But to avoid recontributions and ping-ponging, all changes should be submitted to a vote, not asking "does it fit the rules?", but "does it significantly improve the profile?". If there is a majority of no, the  change should not be accepted. That would have avoided the rush for CoC, for example.

Just a thought, anyway.

Now, you can fire, I'm used to that  ...