Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
For the record, the poll madacid mentions was locked, by Ken, because we already had a poll on the issue.  That poll asked what we wanted in that field.  The result, as Forget indicated, was a virtual tie:

The company that distributed the DVD  (25)

The company that produced the DVD  (26)

And as I have previously noted madacid, the poll was split almost evenly yet the children won the day.They were not interested in compromise or waiting until we got new fields to handle this particular type of data. I am sporry if you don't like it madacid, but this decision was totally wrong and the children were indeed SELFISH. They wanted the data that THEY considered useful with no regard for the FACT that ither users considered the Distribution Company to be equally important.

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
For the record, the poll madacid mentions was locked, by Ken, because we already had a poll on the issue.  That poll asked what we wanted in that field.  The result, as Forget indicated, was a virtual tie:

The company that distributed the DVD  (25)

The company that produced the DVD  (26)

you a right Unicus there was a poll, but i felt, there were not enough options to berepresentative. thats why a started a new poll with "the company who is responsible for the product-release" as option. And never the less how to call this "baby" the users apperently wanna know "who is responsible fot the release" most.

And "responsible for the release" isnot "distributor".

(And again for you skip, this has nothing to do with beeing selfish. We have only one new field for several "important" info. Thats just democracy, and "Distributor" lost this time.)

Instead of "Media Publisher" we can call it "publishing Label" if everyone prefer this. 

So half the poll wanted publisher and half wanted distributor, and you were on the side Ken didn't pick so the other half is  children?  Jeez Louise.  Look in the mirror.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Gard:

You miss most of the point. The system was in place and it worked and had worked for three years. yes we had a poll that was virtually 50-50, in baseball that is called tie goes to the runner, the system should NOT have been changed. So instead of pushing for more fields to accomodate the data that was wanted, the children simply pushed to DESTROY all of the work that had been achieved. FORTUNATELY, most of the data is simply moving as it shgould be. They still have a term which has no definition or anything else. What this amounts to is simple desire by some to turn the Online into their own private little playground with a return to the Guidelines era when data ping-ponged all over the place and some titles were changed on a near weekly basis.

Skip

The field was a NEW one for 3.5 so it had NOT been around for 3 years. As I said previously, this is KEN'S program and he has the absolute right to change any and all fields as he sees fit. He agreed with those who wanted the field change and MOST users have accepted this even if they voted the other way.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Gard:

You miss most of the point. The system was in place and it worked and had worked for three years. yes we had a poll that was virtually 50-50, in baseball that is called tie goes to the runner, the system should NOT have been changed. So instead of pushing for more fields to accomodate the data that was wanted, the children simply pushed to DESTROY all of the work that had been achieved. FORTUNATELY, most of the data is simply moving as it shgould be. They still have a term which has no definition or anything else. What this amounts to is simple desire by some to turn the Online into their own private little playground with a return to the Guidelines era when data ping-ponged all over the place and some titles were changed on a near weekly basis.

Skip

why should any data been destroyed with a add of a new field? the fact deleting the distributor from the studio field if it's not the "publilshing label" as well is critical behaviour and is inadvisable (but that's like every delete of correct data)

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
.Thank you , Unicus, it always nice to see someone that understands. Btw, Mad, you keep referring to it as a new field, without commenting that ORIGINALLY in the beta it WAS called Distributor, until ...need I really explain it all again.

Skip

come on skip. do i really need to explain to you the meaning of "beta-version"? In the Final-version the new field is called "Publisher". I see you don't like this and I wanna collect distribution-data for my releases, too. Also you are right: The field's name isn't perfect, but why are you so demoralized about this? I don't wanna insult you, but the way you are arguing you are acting like a child who hasn't carry his point, and that doesn't help anyone at the moment.

Hopefully Ken added a bunch of new fields in the next version. So we can catch all data we can catch just by watching on the cover.
Fortunatly distribution-data is easy to catch (and over 90% could be catched via an internal mass-update by Ken because the UPC/EAN exactly identify the distributing company. So only 10% would have been really need to change because of "name changes", etc...)
Identify this "UPC/EAN to company-name"-corellation could be a useful task in the meantime, until Ken releases a new version.

Regards
mad

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Yes, it was a new field...but it was a new field with and old purpose.  What I believe Skip is upset about, and I can see his point, is that the purpose was changed when there was no clear consensus reached.  I agree that this is Ken's program and he can change whatever he wants.  But I also agree that Skip, or any other customer, has the right to complain if they don't like it.

Yes Skip has every right to be upset and complain if he wants to, but he has absolutely no right to take it out on fellow users! If Skip wants to complain, he complains to the only person who made the decision: Ken. He has no right to call users who happen to agree with the decision "selfish children".

I notice that the rules no longer mention "DVD Distributor" specifically, but I see no reason why, in situations where the publisher and distributor differ, the distributor simply remains in the Studio section for now.
What do others think?