| Author |
Message |
| Registered: April 3, 2007 |  Posts: 49 |
| | Posted: | | | | Okay, so this lovely actress has worked under both names and there are separate entries for both names in the cast database.
Which one would be preferable:
"Julia Nickson" or "Julia Nickson-Soul (Credited as Julia Nickson)"
Note that she's divorced from David Soul but her IMDB and Wikipedia entries still list her by the married name. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Divorce and what her name might be are irrelevant, as is Wiki and IMDb. What we are interested is her CREDITS and what her MOST COMMONLY Credited name is.
If the CLT results say Julia Nickson-Soul is the most common...so be it. It's not difficult or hard to do, just check the CLT, which it appears somebody MAY have done.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: April 3, 2007 | | Posts: 49 |
| | Posted: | | | | CLT? Okay it took me about 30-seconds to figure that means credit list something, but not every noob is going to get that. | | | | Last edited: by aintnosin |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | CLT = Credit LookupTool (link)"Julia Nickson" 67 titles (139 profiles) "Julia Nickson-Soul" 62 titles (108 profiles) Looks like an answer to me |
|
| Registered: April 3, 2007 | | Posts: 49 |
| | Posted: | | | | ... and it looks like its split about 50-50 (close enough to a statistical tie) so my question remains, which name does everyone hear think would be better? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting aintnosin: Quote:
... and it looks like its split about 50-50 (close enough to a statistical tie) so my question remains, which name does everyone hear think would be better? Actually it's not a tie. According to the CLT her common name for DVDP purposes is Julia Nickson EDIT: it doesn't really matter what everyone thinks would be better. We follow the CLT unless it can be proven incorrect (which has happened). | | | | Last edited: by lyonsden5 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | exactly... we go strictly by the CLT unless we can document that the CLT is incorrect. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: April 3, 2007 | | Posts: 49 |
| | Posted: | | | | Actually, recalling a little of my high school statistics classes and given the small sample size, I wouldn't exactly call 67-62 an overwhelming majority. It's certainly not enough to indicate a clear preference.
So my original question still stands. |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lyonsden5: Quote:
EDIT: it doesn't really matter what everyone thinks would be better. We follow the CLT unless it can be proven incorrect (which has happened). The problem with pretty much EVERY CLT result is that due to the variations with the entered titles, the figure often ends up higher than it should be. For example using these two names I think if you remove the variations of same titles it reverses which is the common name. |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting aintnosin: Quote:
Actually, recalling a little of my high school statistics classes and given the small sample size, I wouldn't exactly call 67-62 an overwhelming majority. It's certainly not enough to indicate a clear preference.
So my original question still stands. It doesn't matter if it's only 1 more or 1000 more, more is still more. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting aintnosin: Quote:
... and it looks like its split about 50-50 (close enough to a statistical tie) so my question remains, which name does everyone hear think would be better? It has nothing to with what you or "everybody" thinks, it is the MOST COMMONLY credited Period, even if it is 4 to 5, or 68 to 69. Just follow the data, don't try and impose yourself upon it, this where we have the biggest number of problems. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting aintnosin: Quote:
Actually, recalling a little of my high school statistics classes and given the small sample size, I wouldn't exactly call 67-62 an overwhelming majority. It's certainly not enough to indicate a clear preference.
So my original question still stands. You don't seem to understand... what you learn in statistics classes or anything outside of the actual credits doesn't matter in the slightest. If there is a name variant higher by only 1 title... that is what we use. Unless you can prove (with documentation) that the CLT is wrong. | | | | Pete | | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting aintnosin: Quote:
... and it looks like its split about 50-50 (close enough to a statistical tie) so my question remains, which name does everyone hear think would be better? It has nothing to with what you or "everybody" thinks, it is the MOST COMMONLY credited Period, even if it is 4 to 5, or 68 to 69. Just follow the data, don't try and impose yourself upon it, this where we have the biggest number of problems. We are also aware of possible credit problem, (these are typically caused by users imposing themselves upon the ACTUAL data) but they must be proven to be in error. Your question does not stand, the answer is Julia Nickson until the count changes. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | And to further clarify Pete's comment. Documentation means proving that a film credit is wrongly listed per OUR Rules. Not IMDb, NOT Wiki, not anything or ANYONE. REAL film credits. If you find a Julia Nickson-Soul that is ACTUALLY credited to Julia Nickson in the movie then you can change that to match the Credit uin THAT movie, but the next one you look at may have Julia Nickson and be ACTUAL:LY credited Julia Nickson-Soul.
FOLLOW THE DATA. Not what YOU, me or anyone else thinks, the DATA. You can do whatever you want locally. But you cannot ignore the Rules to insert your own interpretations.
BTW aintnosin, your comment about CLT is taken. BUT the question now becomes you are a self-professed noob, that's fine, we have had several users, myself included give the specific answer and you want to argue your point...not a good idea. This program has been around for TEN years. Statistics are irrelevant, your belief is irrelevant, IMDb and Wiki are irrelevant as is any other source, what is relevant is Profiler's Contribution Rules and the Credit Lookup Tool.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting aintnosin: Quote:
Actually, recalling a little of my high school statistics classes and given the small sample size, I wouldn't exactly call 67-62 an overwhelming majority. It's certainly not enough to indicate a clear preference.
So my original question still stands. A glance at the credits indicates some errors, at least under Nickson-Soul (Star Trek: TNG credits definitely should be Nickson and i suspect the Rambo II credits also - i don't own it but the film predates her marriage to Hutch by a couple years). These would throw things more strongly towards NicksonIf you want the real answer start a thread like this one. It would 1) help answer your question and 2) provide a reference for those who want to get the cast names (and therefore the CLT) straightended out. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
|