Rick:

I exoect nothing from someone with the intelligence level of a gnat, such as yoursalef. You behave and act like a total idiot. Your post was not a surprise. The others who chose to comment, well they to are expected, particularly the resident amoeba televel. As for johnd you don't get it and never will so give up.

Skip

I am not interested in ANYTHING a Rule Breaker and Vote Stuffer has to say, sir.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I am not interested in ANYTHING a Rule Breaker and Vote Stuffer has to say, sir.

Skip

That's right princess, you ignore the big bad rule breaker.

Quoting johnd:

Quote:
This thread demonstrates the bizarre depths that Skip and others have dragged DVDProfiler. These people have totally lost sight of the intent of the product. DVDProfiler is a tool to enhance the enjoyment of movies, not something to hold a dry and dusty catalogue.

If a set of rules diminishes the tools ability to perform this function, then the rules must change. This thread, and several others, demonstrate that some users are prepared to suck all the fun out of this product.

For instance, the slavish listing of cast "as listed in the film" means that the ability to view all movies for a particular actor is now essentially broken, particularly for those earlier films where he may not have settled on the name form he currently uses. "Credited as" is not working, as there are still lots of updates coming down where the cast name is changed, rather than using the "credited as" function.

This thread shows how this perdantic interpretation actually harms the usefullness of the data. "Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds" as a title is plainly ridiculous. This is not the title of the movie, regardless of arguments to the contrary. Consult any textbook on film to see how stupid this argument is.

And trying to bully people into accepting it just won't work, Skip being the prime example of this yet again.

Well said John, I could not agree more.

Sugar:

Both John's comment and your support demonstrate a clear lack of understanding about this program and its multi-tiered design. "Usefulness of the data" is in the eye of the beholder and hence belongs locally. There are some users who find it useful to group all of James Bond films together and in sequence adn used to actually try to impose that will upon the Online, James Bond 04 is not useful to most users, they would be looking for Thunderball, likewise with virtually every aspect of the program The ultimate usefulness of the data is strictly a user interpretation and belongs nowwhere other than in the that user's LOCAL database.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Both John's comment and your support demonstrate a clear lack of understanding about this program and its multi-tiered design. "Usefulness of the data" is in the eye of the beholder and hence belongs locally. There are some users who find it useful to group all of James Bond films together and in sequence adn used to actually try to impose that will upon the Online, James Bond 04 is not useful to most users, they would be looking for Thunderball, likewise with virtually every aspect of the program The ultimate usefulness of the data is strictly a user interpretation and belongs nowwhere other than in the that user's LOCAL database.

Oh dear. All these years, I've been thinking that the data in the database should be "useful" - silly me. No, I'm sure this is the way to go: usefullness of the data belongs locally. Shall we ask Ken to plaster this notion over the opening page of this site? If that doesn't help in attracting new customers, I don't know what will. So far for our daily lesson in marketing from Skip...

Seriously: I'm sure John's comment reflects the opinion of the huge (and mostly silent) majority of DVD Profiler users. Most people have better things to do then trying to inject some common sense into the umpteenth mud-slinging match disguised as yet another nonsensical thread such as this one or the 1-cent-SRP-thing.

P.S. The James Bond-thing is of course another red herring: the sort title field has been a private/local field for years now, so this has nothing to with anything that you're saying.

<intermission:>
Am I the only one here who receives the impression, that all discussions concerning the rules end in an pub brawl? Is that really necessary?
</intermission:>

So, combatants go ahead! 

Well, in an effort to sort of get back on topic, its simply intuitive that "Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds" is FAR more useful than "The Birds."  After all, most everybody would instinctively look under "A" when searching for, or filing this film. 

EDIT: doh...forget it.  djskyler is way ahead of me.