Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum rules before posting.

Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free registration is required.

If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.

    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1 2 3 4  Previous   Next
.
Author Message
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributornorthbloke
Registered: March 15, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United Kingdom Posts: 5,459
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
My question is this...if we were meant to ignore one in favor of the other, why were we given both?

Because Ken's a sadist and knows we would tear each other apart by giving us both numbers? 
DVD Profiler Unlimited Registrantantolod
Since Dec 02, 2003
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 940
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
What we have here are two sided of the same coin, each ignoring the piece of data they want to ignore.  One side wants to ignore 'titles' while the other wants to ignore 'profiles'.  My question is this...if we were meant to ignore one in favor of the other, why were we given both?

On the "edge" of that coin, some of us would like to count only actual "film credits" and ignore both "titles" and "profiles." My thought as to why the CLT results are presented as we now have them; it was the simplest way that Ken thought of when he was making the tool. The rules are definitely not clear, however, Ken did state we were to use the most credited form. Since film credits, for the most part, do not change from region to region, across editions, or even in re-release, actual credits should be the determining factor when ever someone bothers to dig them up. In the rare instances where actual credits are different, that single title would self negate since it would be adding 1 to the count for each variant actually credited whether it is only 2 variants or 200.

As has been said before, the most credited form can not mean profiles, because profiles are not credits, especially with the preponderance of IMDB data currently residing in a lot of profiles. 2 profiles for Chocolate have IMDB type roles: Madame Pouget (as Dominique Mac'Avoy). If all of the profiles were accurate representations of the credits, the profile count would be more indicative, but would still be inaccurate for the most credited form if we take those words literally. Of the 51 total profiles for the actress in question, 43 profiles from a single film (read 1 "credit") make Mac'avoy count as 1 with 2 film credits each for the other variants. Of the other 2 names, Mac Avoy has 2 titles 2 profiles, and MacAvoy has 2 titles 6 profiles. Using profiles as the tie-breaker, MacAvoy would be the winner provided the actual credits are matching the CLT for those 4 films.

The problem with using the CLT for Titles, is we do not get an accurate count without manually sifting the results. Looking at the results in the first post, the CLT erroneously reports a total of 13 titles where, in fact, there are actually only 5. The profile count is more "stable" since that number does not change like the "title" count can, but like this particular actress, one film of the 5 is skewing the results.

However, for someone who has a more prolific career, with 40, 80, or hundreds of "CLT titles", this is a very cumbersome process. Miguel A. Nunez, Jr. has 193 "titles" and 371 profiles according to the summation of CLT results for all 12 variants that can be found. I realize that "correcting" CLT results by simple subtracting and adding is wrong, because the subtracted title/profile count might not equal the added result, due to the method of "title" counting used by the CLT.

There are so many polluted profiles with the IMDB name in them that getting to the actual credit can only be achieved by narrowing down the list to actual films and getting verified credits for them. In the case of Nunez, there are only 34 actual films for those 193 "titles" and of those, 0 have been verified to match the CLT result "winner" (107/228) which just happens to be the fully accented, comma-less, IMDB version of his name. Note, there are still 11 of those 34 titles not yet verified.

The most important thing is to get as many profiles corrected to match on-screen credits as possible, preserving linking, even if the CLT common name turns out to be the wrong choice, where you know there are variants or it's pointed out by the voters. The more profiles that get corrected credited as data, the more the CLT will start to give more accurate results.

I've not been voting no to common name choices that look to me like it will probably end up changing down the road, because I don't have the time to research all the variants. (I don't necessarily vote yes to them either) I spent over 5 hours creating and editing the posts on Nunez alone, looking at all 371 CLT profile results line by line making a spreadsheet trying to count title/profile totals, and PMing several users asking for help. Most of the people I asked were pretty quick to give me results, and every one of them got a green arrow for their time. I think the CLT needs a little work, to make it more efficient to use, like sorting by original title, sort by role as another viewing option, (which might help group the films) and it would be nice to have a count of original titles.
Kevin
 Last edited: by antolod
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorRaymondG
Registered: July 7, 2007
Netherlands Posts: 284
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
Quoting tweeter:
Quote:
Quoting Giga Wizard:
Quote:
that is what you are making of it: titles and this is not implied by the rules.

Titles are not implied by the rules either. So it is open to interpretation.  Without guidance from on high either POV might be valid.

Finally, someone who seems to understand.  All this back and forth means nothing as it is all based on how you interpret the data.

What we have here are two sided of the same coin, each ignoring the peice of data they want to ignore.  One side wants to ignore 'titles' while the other wants to ignore 'profiles'.  My question is this...if we were meant to ignore one in favor of the other, why were we given both?


Is this another perfect example of matter over mind? Do the rules overrule common sense?
As long as the rules leave space for interpretation, we can always decide amongst ourselves what the best way is. As T!M already said: past polls all point in the same direction and quite convincingly.
My DVD's

Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard drive?
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributordee1959jay
Registered: March 19, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Netherlands Posts: 6,018
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
@ antolod:
Very well-considered post, and let me express my strong support for entering original titles into the equation. Given the habit in some localities to translate titles, it's not always easy to verify whether two titles are actually the same film or not.
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorTheMadMartian
Alien with an attitude
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
United States Posts: 13,202
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting RaymondG:
Quote:

Is this another perfect example of matter over mind? Do the rules overrule common sense?
As long as the rules leave space for interpretation, we can always decide amongst ourselves what the best way is. As T!M already said: past polls all point in the same direction and quite convincingly.


This is going to come off sounding sarcastic, so I apologize in advance, but what forums are you reading?  As this thread clearly illustrates, we can NOT decide amongst ourselves what the best way is.  Even if we did, we can't force that decision on the rest of the community as we are not in charge.

It is a nice idea, but it isn't a realistic one.
No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar
 Last edited: by TheMadMartian
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorT!M
Profiling since Dec. 2000
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Netherlands Posts: 8,736
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
As this thread clearly illustrates, we can NOT decide amongst ourselves what the best way is.

Maybe the forum visitors can not reach such a consensus, but judging from the voting results on Giga Wizard's contribution, the voters can. You need to realize that most users with an ounce of common sense in them (the ones that understand that 1 credit out of 5 doesn't exactly make a common name) have left the forums a long time ago... 

As for antolod: excellent post! As someone else once said: "Finally, someone who seems to understand."
    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1 2 3 4  Previous   Next