Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Some of us sees value in the information.

What information? At best it's data - not information.

And what about a Not Rated direct-to-video feature? What rating system would that have been not-rated by?

The whole thing makes just as much sense as this old ditty:

As I was going up the stair.
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I wish, I wish he'd stay away.

We get it! You see no value in it. So be it. Others do, so give it a rest already .

It's just as meaningless as if I would enter the audio track for the silent Cabinet of Dr. Caligari as being German because if there had in fact been dialog in the movie, it would have been in German.

It's the same thing. It isn't rated - but if it had been rated it would have been rated by this or that system.

And what if a direct-to-video film gets shown on Television? Should the rating be changed from Not Rated - Film to Not Rated - Television? If not, then apparently the order of how it is shown determines the Rating System. On TV first then on DVD = Not Rated - Television. On DVD first then on Television = Not Rated - Film.

I fail to see how this translates into any useful information. You say it does, so I guess it does for you. I would dearly love to have this explained, though.

Pete,

You should note what I said in my second post in this thread:

Quote:
I don't mind people changing it as part of a wider contribution. I just feel that it's not really useful to clutter the contribution system with this change alone.

That should tell you that I don't mind the information per se. I felt it didn't add significant information that warranted a contribution just for the sole reason of changing this - as I perceive it -  "non-information".

In my mind, there is no difference between not rating a film and not rating a TV show. It wasn't rated, period.

I see that I'm flogging a dead horse, so I'll just give one last example of how meaningless I see this:
- Did you go to town today?
- No
- Which road did you not take when you didn't go; the high road or the low road?

From now I'll accept that no one else seems to see this the way I do, and I'll vote yes to these changes without any more complaints. Thanks to all for not turning this thread into mudslinging, though, as seems to happen in so many other threads where people have different opinions.

Oy, circular logic..you gotta love it.

Skip

At least it's not as bad as when someone tries to submit rating details for an unrated title.

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
What information? At best it's data - not information.

Since when is data not information (or information not data)?  To me the words are synonyms.

To me, information is what you see in data. 

In that GSyren is correct - information is data that has meaning.  Information is data that has been organized, structured, given context and interpreted to be relevant.  Data must be interpreted and processed to have any meaning - look at statistics.  Those numbers are data, but without understanding their context, the actual numbers are useless.  Data must also be correct to become information, so changing rating type to television helps turn the NR data into information.

(MS in library & information science, had to study this crap in school.)

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
For knowing that it was made for Television, we have Television as a genre.

The Film/Television rating system just tells us what rating system was used. If it's Not Rated, then no rating system was used. So it's pretty meaningless information.

I don't mind people changing it as part of a wider contribution. I just feel that it's not really useful to clutter the contribution system with this change alone.

I completely agree with you - this change adds no value and is not significant when it's Not Rated.