Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Just because a lot of people are using it, doesn't mean it works right.  It just means that a lot of people don't have the sense God gave little green peas.  Most of the common name updates I see have little or no legitimate documentation, or aren't needed in the first place.  I still haven't seen any ruling from Ken on who decides what the common name is.  Until that happens, ANY use of common name is based on personal preference, and that's why we shouldn't be using it.  It hasn't got anything to do with a few "vocal" users.  But, those of us who can see farther than the end of our own noses can see the absolute mess current use is making of things, and the longer it goes on the worse it will be to fix when Ken figures out how to make it work right.

I understand what you're saying, but just have a look at what the rules tell us to do:

Use the "As Credited" field where the person's name differs from the credited name.

Nothing more, nothing less. I'm just doing what Ken told me to do - and I'm happy that he did, obviously. You can argue all you want, but that's what the rules say. You're free in choosing to not use the feature, but I do get a bit tired of the few vocal users that keep on shouting that it "doesn't work", creates an "absolute mess" and so on. While I agree that some more guidance would help, even with these problems this system is a HUGE improvement over the mindnumbingly stupid method of copying each and every spelling mistake from the credits, proudly declaring: "it's as credited!", resulting in an utterly useless database. Finally, we have a method that gives us the opportunity to link credits together, while also keeping the "as credited" name. I'm most grateful to Ken for this, and I trust that further improvements in this department will only continue to enhance the feature. The biggest problem that we have is that it requires the users to actually THINK, and apply some common sense, instead of just mindlessly copying what's on-screen. Apparently, that is too much to ask from some users.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
....The biggest problem that we have is that it requires the users to actually THINK, and apply some common sense, instead of just mindlessly copying what's on-screen. Apparently, that is too much to ask from some users.

Apparently... 

Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
I still haven't seen any ruling from Ken on who decides what the common name is.

No, me neither. But do we really need a rule to know what a common name is? It should be common knowledge that a common name is the name which is used the most. The only problem almost all users are facing is the fact they do not have enough evidence to back up a common name, because they do not own enough DVDs to know this for sure.

Yes, we do.  The rule doesn't tell us where to get the common name.  So, User A puts in Joe Blow.  User B then says no that isn't right, it should be Joseph Blow, and User C says you're both wrong, it's Joey Blow.  Which one is right?  But then, the problem is compounded because whichever one ends up being accepted, it gets propogated through everybody's systems, often without them even realizing it.

So, we end up with changes that may or may not be legit, have little or no documentation, etc.  How is that doing anybody any good?  All it really does is screw up MY ability to make a simple update contribution because I have to worry about documentation for something I didn't even enter, or it gets shot down because I don't have the common name in my database, even if that entry isn't even involved in the update.  That limits my usability of the program.

@ Rifter: basically, you're worried that will result in "incorrect" data. There are two answers to this:

First: remember that "credited as" still lets you keep the old-style "as credited" cast and crew lists we always had. At no point do you lose any information, you can only gain some.

Second: whenever you disagree with any common name, you're welcome to submit an update in which you correct it. The voting process will deal with this perfectly fine. You're right in that some people may decide on different common names for the same people, that seems to be inevitable. But I expect these will be ironed out as time goes by and more people start using the system. I already suggested months ago to create a new sub-forum about common names, where we can discuss about some of the less obvious common names on a case-by-case basis. But really, in most cases it's rather obvious. You should try it sometime.

I am not worried about incorrect data., Tim. i am worried about you causing EVERYBODY a lot of work to undo what you are doing if Ken standards don't match YOURS. Ifind your attitude on this to be incredibly selfish and inconsiderate of EVERY other user in the community. You also are not using anything resembling good documentation to support your claims. But that is a different issue and all I can do right now is vote neutral on ANY and ALL Contributions that include such data.

Skip

Why does it matter whether it is Jim James or Jimmy? The program doesn't care, all it cares about is that James Stewart is the same as Jimmy is the same as Jim is the same as J. That way all the films are linked. That's what a database is for. Now there will be some ping ponging, I am sure, as Jimmy becomes James and back again BUT I doubt it will be the huge headache the doom hearalders claim. Months down the line as has been pointed out this is being used  and the world has not come to an end and we are not seeing "Endless ping ponging".

So long as a single entity emerges it matters not which one that is. Voting will determine if it is a suitable common name. A list on here for names already linked would help in the process but it wouldn't be essential.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
As has been commented elsewhere in relation to some of things I say from time to time...talk about mindless and slavish following of the rules, Tim. You are only risking making a mess, what harm is done by keeping your stuff local for now, you have YOUR links and thje program does what you want it to do. Then when the standards and criteria are revealed, if they don't match yours, the ONLY person you have "harmed" is yourself, instead of dragging everybody into the same hole you are creating. Please Tim, for now, show a little sense and keep it local until Ken tells how he wants it done.3

I really don't see why you're so frightened of progress. I agree that there are no standards yet, and I'd welcome more guidance from Ken on this, but regardless of these "teething issues", the feature already works wonders, and I see no harm in sharing my work with the community. Also - again - it's what the rules tell us to do. I really don't think you're entitled to request users to stop using a feature, just because you don't like it. Again: if Ken feels the same about using the feature as you do, he has several methods to instruct us to do otherwise. It is really not your job to protect the database from a growing number of users who are only making use of DVDP's features as per Ken's instructions.

I promise you, if any future enhancements/standards disagree with what I've contributed, I will personally correct it all. I do thank you for your concern about my the amount of work that I have (and will) put in. But somehow I feel things are gonna turn out fine.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I don't understand why you HAVE have it right NOW

I had to have it from the moment I started using DVDP: linking entries together is one of the most elementary features of a database. Now that we finally have this feature - and we've had it for six months now - I don't see why we shouldn't use it. Should we wait for another six months? Or maybe another three years? I'll be happy to comply with any standards Ken may set in the future, but until then, I see absolutely no harm in working with the feature right now.

Once more: Ken says, through the rules, to use the feature. You say not to use the feature - mainly because you're concerned that different users will use different common names. Why should I have to follow your instructions instead of Ken's? Your concern is valid in that it's bound to happen in a number of cases, but as more and more users start using "common names", it'll soon become apparent which is the most popular choice. The voting system can deal with this just fine, and we can also discuss about certain difficult cases in the forums.

I really don't think YOU are the person to decide whether we should all make use of a feature or not. Anyway, I'm done discussing this for today: I have some profiles to audit...